Philosophy Unchained: Developments in Post-Soviet Philosophical Thought (Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society) [New ed.] 9783838217680, 9783838277684, 3838217683

Citation preview

259

SPPS

Edited by Andreas Umland

Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society

Vol. 259

Philosophy Unchained

The editor: Dr. Mikhail Minakov is Senior Advisor at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, Washington, DC, as well as editor of the Kennan Institute’s blog Ukraine Focus. He is also editor of the Ideology and Politics Journal and the philosophical website Koine. Among Minakov’s recent books are From “The Ukraine” to Ukraine (co-edited with Georgii Kasianov and Matthew Rojansky, ibidem-Verlag 2021), Post-Soviet Secessionism (co-edited with Daria Isachenko and Gwendolyn Sasse, ibidem-Verlag 2021), The Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe (in Russian, Laurus 2020), and Development and Dystopia (ibidem-Verlag 2018). His over 120 articles have appeared in, among other journals, Russian Politics and Law, Protest, Southeastern Europe, Transit, Studi slavistici, Mondo economico, Porownania, Neprikosnovennyi zapas, Sententiae, Krytyka, Agora, Ukraina moderna, and Filosofska dumka.

SPPS

Minakov (ed.)

The East European and North Eurasian nations’ common past in the Soviet Union connects them in terms of both their political histories and the evolution of their philosophical thought. The USSR’s dissolution created new opportunities, domestic and international, in science, politics, and business. De-Sovietization meant for philosophy that it lost its former significance as a political-ideological tool of the authorities, and its previous role in society. Philosophers of the former Soviet bloc now found themselves able to communicate with colleagues around the world. This volume’s chapters analyze the renewal of the philosophical enterprise over the last thirty to forty years, in Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Among its authors are Yevgeniy Abdullaev, Viktoras Bakhmetjevas, Alexandru Cosmescu, Maija Kule, Denys Kiryukhin, Giorgi Khuroshvili, Mikhail Maiatsky, Tatyana Shchittsova, and Mikhail Minakov.

Mikhail Minakov (ed.)

Philosophy Unchained Developments in Post-Soviet Philosophical Thought

The author of the foreword: Dr. Christopher Donohue is a historian at the National Human Genome Research Institute in Bethesda, Maryland.

With a foreword by Christopher Donohue

ISBN: 978-3-8382-1768-0 Distributed by

ibidem

ibd

ibidem

Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society (SPPS)

Vol. 259

ISSN 1614-3515 General Editor: Andreas Umland,

Commissioning Editor: Max Jakob Horstmann,

Stockholm Centre for Eastern European Studies, [email protected]

London, [email protected]

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE* DOMESTIC & COMPARATIVE POLITICS Prof. Ellen Bos, Andrássy University of Budapest Dr. Gergana Dimova, University of Winchester Dr. Andrey Kazantsev, MGIMO (U) MID RF, Moscow Prof. Heiko Pleines, University of Bremen Prof. Richard Sakwa, University of Kent at Canterbury Dr. Sarah Whitmore, Oxford Brookes University Dr. Harald Wydra, University of Cambridge SOCIETY, CLASS & ETHNICITY Col. David Glantz, “Journal of Slavic Military Studies” Dr. Marlène Laruelle, George Washington University Dr. Stephen Shulman, Southern Illinois University Prof. Stefan Troebst, University of Leipzig POLITICAL ECONOMY & PUBLIC POLICY Dr. Andreas Goldthau, Central European University Dr. Robert Kravchuk, University of North Carolina Dr. David Lane, University of Cambridge Dr. Carol Leonard, Higher School of Economics, Moscow Dr. Maria Popova, McGill University, Montreal

FOREIGN POLICY & INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS Dr. Peter Duncan, University College London Prof. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, University of Bonn Prof. Gerhard Mangott, University of Innsbruck Dr. Diana Schmidt-Pfister, University of Konstanz Dr. Lisbeth Tarlow, Harvard University, Cambridge Dr. Christian Wipperfürth, N-Ost Network, Berlin Dr. William Zimmerman, University of Michigan HISTORY, CULTURE & THOUGHT Dr. Catherine Andreyev, University of Oxford Prof. Mark Bassin, Södertörn University Prof. Karsten Brüggemann, Tallinn University Dr. Alexander Etkind, University of Cambridge Dr. Gasan Gusejnov, Moscow State University Prof. Leonid Luks, Catholic University of Eichstaett Dr. Olga Malinova, Russian Academy of Sciences Dr. Richard Mole, University College London Prof. Andrei Rogatchevski, University of Tromsø Dr. Mark Tauger, West Virginia University

ADVISORY BOARD* Prof. Dominique Arel, University of Ottawa Prof. Jörg Baberowski, Humboldt University of Berlin Prof. Margarita Balmaceda, Seton Hall University Dr. John Barber, University of Cambridge Prof. Timm Beichelt, European University Viadrina Dr. Katrin Boeckh, University of Munich Prof. em. Archie Brown, University of Oxford Dr. Vyacheslav Bryukhovetsky, Kyiv-Mohyla Academy Prof. Timothy Colton, Harvard University, Cambridge Prof. Paul D’Anieri, University of Florida Dr. Heike Dörrenbächer, Friedrich Naumann Foundation Dr. John Dunlop, Hoover Institution, Stanford, California Dr. Sabine Fischer, SWP, Berlin Dr. Geir Flikke, NUPI, Oslo Prof. David Galbreath, University of Aberdeen Prof. Alexander Galkin, Russian Academy of Sciences Prof. Frank Golczewski, University of Hamburg Dr. Nikolas Gvosdev, Naval War College, Newport, RI Prof. Mark von Hagen, Arizona State University Dr. Guido Hausmann, University of Munich Prof. Dale Herspring, Kansas State University Dr. Stefani Hoffman, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Prof. Mikhail Ilyin, MGIMO (U) MID RF, Moscow Prof. Vladimir Kantor, Higher School of Economics Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottawa Prof. em. Andrzej Korbonski, University of California Dr. Iris Kempe, “Caucasus Analytical Digest” Prof. Herbert Küpper, Institut für Ostrecht Regensburg Dr. Rainer Lindner, CEEER, Berlin Dr. Vladimir Malakhov, Russian Academy of Sciences

Dr. Luke March, University of Edinburgh Prof. Michael McFaul, Stanford University, Palo Alto Prof. Birgit Menzel, University of Mainz-Germersheim Prof. Valery Mikhailenko, The Urals State University Prof. Emil Pain, Higher School of Economics, Moscow Dr. Oleg Podvintsev, Russian Academy of Sciences Prof. Olga Popova, St. Petersburg State University Dr. Alex Pravda, University of Oxford Dr. Erik van Ree, University of Amsterdam Dr. Joachim Rogall, Robert Bosch Foundation Stuttgart Prof. Peter Rutland, Wesleyan University, Middletown Prof. Marat Salikov, The Urals State Law Academy Dr. Gwendolyn Sasse, University of Oxford Prof. Jutta Scherrer, EHESS, Paris Prof. Robert Service, University of Oxford Mr. James Sherr, RIIA Chatham House London Dr. Oxana Shevel, Tufts University, Medford Prof. Eberhard Schneider, University of Siegen Prof. Olexander Shnyrkov, Shevchenko University, Kyiv Prof. Hans-Henning Schröder, SWP, Berlin Prof. Yuri Shapoval, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences Prof. Viktor Shnirelman, Russian Academy of Sciences Dr. Lisa Sundstrom, University of British Columbia Dr. Philip Walters, “Religion, State and Society”, Oxford Prof. Zenon Wasyliw, Ithaca College, New York State Dr. Lucan Way, University of Toronto Dr. Markus Wehner, “Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung” Dr. Andrew Wilson, University College London Prof. Jan Zielonka, University of Oxford Prof. Andrei Zorin, University of Oxford

* While the Editorial Committee and Advisory Board support the General Editor in the choice and improvement of manuscripts for publication, responsibility for remaining errors and misinterpretations in the series’ volumes lies with the books’ authors.

Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society (SPPS) ISSN 1614-3515 Founded in 2004 and refereed since 2007, SPPS makes available affordable English-, German-, and Russian-language studies on the history of the countries of the former Soviet bloc from the late Tsarist period to today. It publishes between 5 and 20 volumes per year and focuses on issues in transitions to and from democracy such as economic crisis, identity formation, civil society development, and constitutional reform in CEE and the NIS. SPPS also aims to highlight so far understudied themes in East European studies such as right-wing radicalism, religious life, higher education, or human rights protection. The authors and titles of all previously published volumes are listed at the end of this book. For a full description of the series and reviews of its books, see www.ibidem-verlag.de/red/spps.

Recent Volumes 250

Alexander Motyl National Questions Theoretical Reflections on Nations and Nationalism in Eastern Europe ISBN 978-3-8382-1675-1

251

Marc Dietrich A Cosmopolitan Model for Peacebuilding The Ukrainian Cases of Crimea and the Donbas ISBN 978-3-8382-1687-4

252

Eduard Baidaus An Unsettled Nation State-Building, Identity, and Separatism in Post-Soviet Moldova With forewords by John-Paul Himka and David R. Marples ISBN 978-3-8382-1582-2

253

Editorial correspondence & manuscripts should be sent to: Dr. Andreas Umland, Department of Political Science, Kyiv-Mohyla 254 Academy, vul. Voloska 8/5, UA-04070 Kyiv, UKRAINE; [email protected] Business correspondence & review copy re- 255 quests should be sent to: ibidem Press, Leuschnerstr. 40, 30457 Hannover, Germany; tel.: +49 511 2622200; fax: +49 511 2622201; 256 [email protected]. Authors, reviewers, referees, and editors for (as well as all other persons sympathetic to) SPPS are invited to join its networks at www.fa257 cebook.com/group.php?gid=52638198614 www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=103012 www.xing.com/net/spps-ibidem-verlag/

258

Igor Okunev, Petr Oskolkov (Eds.) Transforming the Administrative Matryoshka The Reform of Autonomous Okrugs in the Russian Federation, 2003–2008 With a foreword by Vladimir Zorin ISBN 978-3-8382-1721-5

Winfried Schneider-Deters Ukraine’s Fateful Years 2013–2019 Vol. I: The Popular Uprising in Winter 2013/2014 ISBN 978-3-8382-1725-3

Winfried Schneider-Deters Ukraine’s Fateful Years 2013–2019 Vol. II: The Annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas ISBN 978-3-8382-1726-0

Robert M. Cutler Soviet and Post-Soviet Russian Foreign Policies II East-West Relations in Europe and the Political Economy of the Communist Bloc, 1971–1991 With a foreword by Roger E. Kanet ISBN 978-3-8382-1727-7

Robert M. Cutler Soviet and Post-Soviet Russian Foreign Policies III East-West Relations in Europe and Eurasia in the PostCold War Transition, 1991–2001 With a foreword by Roger E. Kanet ISBN 978-3-8382-1728-4

Pawel Kowal, Iwona Reichardt, Kateryna Pryshchepa (Eds.) Three Revolutions: Mobilization and Change in Contemporary Ukraine III Archival Records and Historical Sources on the 1990 Revolution on Granite ISBN 978-3-8382-1376-7

Mikhail Minakov (Ed.)

PHILOSOPHY UNCHAINED Developments in Post-Soviet Philosophical Thought With a foreword by Christopher Donohue

Bibliografische Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der Deutschen Nationalbibliografie; detaillierte bibliografische Daten sind im Internet über http://dnb.d-nb.de abrufbar. Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Cover picture: © Mykhailo Minakov

ISBN-13: 978-3-8382-7768-4 © ibidem-Verlag, Stuttgart 2023 Alle Rechte vorbehalten Das Werk einschließlich aller seiner Teile ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Jede Verwertung außerhalb der engen Grenzen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes ist ohne Zustimmung des Verlages unzulässig und strafbar. Dies gilt insbesondere für Vervielfältigungen, Übersetzungen, Mikroverfilmungen und elektronische Speicherformen sowie die Einspeicherung und Verarbeitung in elektronischen Systemen. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronical, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the publisher. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.

Contents Chris R. Donohue Foreword. Soviet and Post-Soviet Philosophy: Continuities, Complexities, Unshacklings, and Zombifications .............................................................................. 7 Mikhail Minakov Editor’s Introduction. Philosophy Unchained: Introductory Notes on the Post-Soviet Philosophical Condition ................ 17

1

2

3

4

5

6

Mikhail Minakov The Soviet Philosophical Condition: Adventures of Philosophy in the Soviet Union ...................... 21 Tatiana Shchyttsova Philosophy as a Realistic Utopia: A Personal View on the Emancipation of Philosophy in Post-Soviet Belarus............................................ 75 Giorgi Khuroshvili Philosophy in Independent Georgia ...................................... 101 Maija Kūle Latvian Philosophical Developments in the Context of Western Thought ............................................ 123 Viktoras Bachmetjevas Philosophy in Lithuania after 1989 ........................................ 153 Alexandru Cosmescu Constructing a Philosophical Voice. Discursive Positions in Moldovan Philosophical Journals ...................................................................................... 175

5

7

Michail Maiatsky Contemporary Philosophy in Russia (1991–2022) ............................................................... 211

8

Denys Kiryukhin The Philosophical Process in Post-Soviet Ukraine ............................................................. 283

9

Yevgeniy Abdullaev Philosophy in Post-Soviet Uzbekistan ................................... 323

The Contributors....................................................................... 343 Index of Names, Terms, and Titles......................................... 349

6

Foreword Soviet and Post-Soviet Philosophy Continuities, Complexities, Unshacklings, and Zombifications Christopher R. Donohue Soviet philosophy frequently carried with it a note of apology. I. Luppol observed in the third edition of his widely known “Lenin and Philosophy” that Lenin was “not the author of many philosophical treatises” as he was not an “armchair academic who forever and exclusively buried himself in books, finding his own little world in them” (Luppol 1930: 12). This was because for Luppol (discussed by Mikhail Minakov in this volume), Lenin was “not a theoretician for the sake of theory”(Luppol: ibid.). At the same time, as was equally well-known, Marx had a high claim for philosophy. Marx wrote in the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right: Introduction that not only did philosophy become concrete in the proletariat, but also that philosophy itself was the spiritual weapon of the proletariat. Philosophy, rather highly and abstractly, is part and whole, end and beginning. Likewise, as Hannah Arendt underscored in her brilliant, though sadly unfinished analyses of Marx and Marxism, that both were revolutionary and immensely important. She wrote that the real break of Marx was in his denial of the tradition, which ranked thinking higher than action—a position that stretched back to Plato. As Arendt noted, thinkers prior to Marx had firmly committed to the idea that the only function of politics was to “make possible” and “safeguard” the life of contemplation, which viewed the withdrawal from the world as the summum bonum (Arendt 2009: 76). Philosophy, though of dire importance to Marxist and Soviet thought, was at the same time undernourished due to the emphasis on politics, and on action more broadly, its own praxis. 7

8

FOREWORD

At the same time, Marxist, Soviet and now post-Soviet philosophy has continually suffered from the assumption that philosophy (and arts and letters more generally) in Russia and in Eastern Europe, were the consequence of an overwrought interpretation of “Western” ideas such as the Enlightenment philosophies of man and of the state, of Romanticism, of varieties of socialism and communism. And because of the so-called “Russian character” and uneven and haphazard modes of institutional, intellectual, and social development in Russia and Eastern Europe, these ideas caused irresolvable conflicts with the Old Regime. Martin Malia epitomized a generation of work in Russian and European intellectual history by underscoring the great receptivity of Russians in Herzen and Tolstoy’s eras to Western European ideas—whether to Spinoza, Diderot, Babeuf, Proudhon, Hegel, the natural and biological sciences, Darwinian theory, and Mendelian genetics. Such receptivity, due to the fragility of state and social institutions, led to radicalism, accelerationism, and finally, cataclysm (Todes 1989; Vucinich 1963; Malia 1995: 65). Soviet and now post-Soviet philosophy in Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Baltic States, was then a constant series of negotiations with Marx and Marxist theory, revealing significant breaks because of revolutions and the violent strictures of Stalinist totalitarian rule. As importantly, the end of the Communist system in Russia, Eastern Europe, and the Baltic States was indeed another break and signified both an unshackling of philosophy from Soviet strictures as well as an embrace of a specific strand of the liberal tradition, spanning from John Stewart Mill, Mary Wollstonecraft to Walter Bagehot to Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper and Friedrich von Hayek. Nevertheless, one sees in many writings and political reconfigurations today, some essential continuities. The role of Marxism and Soviet philosophy, then, both during and after Communist governance, reveals itself to be both self and other. Authors working in Russia under the Soviet system in biology and genetics, and against both European and American justifications of eugenics and of scientific racism, such as the anthropologist M. Volockoj (1893–1944), reveal a complex series of

SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PHILOSOPHY

9

negotiations and adjustments to the Soviet philosophical condition. Volockoj’s own complex alignment of eugenics with the Marxist orthodoxy illustrated various elements of “mimicry” of “good philosophy,” strenuous efforts to introduce ideas which worked against many of the fundamental tenants of Marxist practice (such as a reduction of man to the genetic and to the biological), and an intensive jousting with its subject matter. Volockoj underscored in his The System of Eugenics as a Biosocial Discipline that not enough was known in genetics to “eliminate the root causes of hereditary diseases” through eugenic measures (Volockoj 1928: 18). On the other hand, he also argued that eugenic measures, such as “sterilization, prohibition of marriage, (and) segregation” were among the only methods possible for the “protection the interests of offspring” (Volockoj 1928: 19). Much the same rhetoric was used many years earlier by one of the main proponents of the Czech eugenic movement Jaroslav Kříženecký “Youth Protection and Eugenics” (Ochrana mládeže a eugenika), published in 1916. At the same time, Volockoj also complained, hewing closer to the Marxist orthodoxy, that ideas about positive eugenics (or efforts to increase the population of the so-called “fit,” as opposed to methods such as sterilization which eliminated the so-called “unfit”) were much like the complaints of Tolstoy and Pushkin about the “mass of mediocrity” (Volockoj 1928: 21). More ‘orthodox’ for the ideological times was Volockoj’s insistence that any system of eugenics needs to account for the “the role of the evolution of socio-economic relations” (Volockoj 1928: 16). Although the biological features of the organism may be immutable, according to Volockoj, as capitalism gave way to “higher social forms” and to communism, this would change the very nature of values and of social competition. The “fangs” (klykí) which were so useful in the formerly capitalist world will be nothing but a “shameful ballast” in the new communist system, where there will be an inversion of not only capitalist values but the very social structure itself (Volockoj 1928: 30). Another illustrative text, a Russian translation of the genetic epidemiologist James Neel’s Human Heredity with an introduction by the geneticist S. N. Ardashnikov in 1958 saw the return of a kind

10

FOREWORD

of scientific and ideological pluralism to the Soviet philosophical condition after Stalin. Ardashnikov underscored that the book was the “best of its kind” as it relates to human genetics and questions relating to human heredity, as well as the connections between genetics and environment. Nevertheless, he cautioned the reader as to Neel’s extensive discussions of eugenics. Ardashnikov detailed how Neel’s even moderate support of some forms of eugenics was “incompatible with our ideas.” Such eugenic ideas, Ardashnikov’s noted, supported “racism” and “colonial wars.” Ardashnikov was, importantly, correct on this. For Ardashnikov, as well, Neel’s own support of eugenics, furthermore, was illustrative for the Russian reader of the support of so-called “progressive” “Western” scientists of eugenics. Ardashnikov gave then the readers his support of the latest research in genetics, the environment, and their connection to disease, along with a categorical rejection (rightly!) of eugenics as racist, colonialist, and disturbingly accepted by many geneticists in the “West” (Neel 1958: 5–6). And as I argue in my in-preparation work on genetics, politics, and the use of various Marxisms as a philosophical substratum in eastern Europe after World War II, the consequences of the Marxist orthodoxies were enormous and generational. Without the “Marxist humanism” of Tito’s Yugoslavia and the Praxis school we would not have the singularly Spenglerian reactionary Marxism of Serbian philosopher Mihailo Marković, whose 1964 Man and Technics (Čovek i tehnika) contains the roots of Marković’s virulent biological ethnonationalism, beginning in the 1980s. Nor today, without the memories and weaponized legacy of that regime, would there be the figure of Tomislav Sunić of the “New European Right” spreading conspiratorial and genocidal theories concerning how “multicultural and multiracial states…lead to civil wars” or how the communistic “new class” caused a “negative sociobiological selection” which directly led the breakup of the state of Yugoslavia (“Kresimir” 2018). Nor would there be, without Marxism and the Soviet philosophical condition, the work of family sociologist Walenty Majdański bemoaning the “marriages” of “bourgeoisie” and of “workers” as “childless” and “comfortable-consumable.”

SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PHILOSOPHY

11

Writing in 1947 with the imprimatur of the Catholic Church in Poland in The Family Against the Coming Epoch, Majdański vociferously inveighed against what he called “rationalizing children” as well as the “rationalization of children” (Majdański 1947: 5) By this he meant a kind of an “insane” “autonomy” where “marriages may not have enough children for a nation to exist.” Nations, further, with not enough children, according to Majdański, will die out, most likely from attacks from external enemies (Majdański 1947:8) Majdański, calling for “new moral forces,” (ibid.: 6) stridently inveighed against “autonomy” without “healthy morality.” Otherwise, he continued, without morality the increase in autonomy would lead to “anarchy.” Such a state was already occurring, he argued, in Europe and in the United States (ibid.: 7) For him, a true “revolutionary” and “citizen” was an individual who led a life which is “knowingly faithful to nature” and a “healthy married life.” Any other “revolutionaries” or “citizens” for Majdański were dying out like the “bison” of the American West, or “parasites.” For him, the most important “struggle” for the Polish nation was that for the “healthy family life” which was the “basis for the existences of classes and nations.” For Majdański finally there was no future either for the proletariat (or by extension for the Communist form of government). For him, the modern-day “workers”, the modern-day proletariat were very much unlike the old Roman variety, of a “poor man with many children.” Rather it “can be said that the proletarians are dying out today as the aristocracy once did” (ibid: 10). Majdański’s writings have a startling contemporaneity to them. Though working under and very much against the Marxist orthodoxy and in Communist Poland, one could very easily imagine the exact same arguments made by Viktor Orban in Hungary today. Particularly striking is Majdański’s juxtaposition of Poland with “Europe” and “America”, his themes of internal and external enemies besetting the nation, and his call for “new moral forces.” For Majdański, both Europe and America had “autonomy” without “values” and as such were in “anarchy.” His was a critique both of liberty and of individualism outside of traditional

12

FOREWORD

moralism. His biological othering of his opponents as “bison” and as “dying out and extinct” (ibid:11) both declining in number and at the same time decimating the body politic “consciously dying” “diametrically different, ” from “a completely different world” (ibid: 11), not only brings to mind the virulent Nazi German eliminationist antisemitism of the 1930s and 1940s, but also closely parallels the biological othering of political and other opponents by Orban, Sunić and other leaders of the new European right. The demodernization of American political discourse, which began with Donald Trump’s rise to political prominence in 2016, may well have reached a new and dangerous stage with a significant section of the Republican party becoming an extension of Orbanism in mid2022 (see most recently: Borger & Garamvolgyi 2020) As important, the continued study of Soviet philosophy and its post-Soviet legacies is newly necessary because of the essential parallels between reactionary thought under Communism and the reactionary populism has which emerged from after its dissolution. Tomislav Sunić draws frequent parallels between what he calls “Homo sovieticus” and the post-Soviet “Homo americanus.” Sunić, as part of his Social Darwinist identitarianism, argues that while it appears that both ideologies, epistemologies, ways of being were fundamentally opposed, especially after the fall of the Soviet Union, similarities between the two have begun to emerge. According to Sunić, both American and Soviet variants were “anchored to the same egalitarian foundations.” Like his Soviet counterpart, the American version became “a global kind” whose morals, ideals and values circulated far beyond the territorial borders of America or of the Soviet Union. Last, Sunić contends that America’s egalitarianism and openness to “the ever-increasing demands of non-European newcomers” will eventually lead to a leveling of society and a kind of “proto-communism” (Sunic 2019). Much like Orban and Vladimir Putin now, Sunić underscored that post-Communist Eastern Europe should promote values that were antithetical to the “West” because the denizens of Eastern Europe were characterologically different from their “Western” European counterparts. Sunić spat that, “Liberal global illusions of ‘equal

SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PHILOSOPHY

13

rights’ trigger today great neurosis among the youth of Eastern Europe” (Sunic 1997). Almost forty years ago, Jeffrey Herf, in his brilliant Reactionary Modernism, outlined the history of “Americanism” and its importance to the German far-right. According to Herf, “Americanism meant consumerism, mass culture, Taylorism, and liberalism.” Such a combination of hatreds animated the work of figures throughout the 20th century, from Oswald Spengler to Mihailo Marković (Herf 1984: 87). Herf notes elsewhere that Amerikanismus, for far-right intellectuals and their circles was a “plague threatening the German soul” (ibid: 41). Herf's insight about Americanism, combined with the falsification that technology in the twentieth century is so pervasive as having no subject, object or remedy, is generalizable to a significant amount of anti-liberal thought after WWII. Identitiarian, Social Darwinian figures like Sunić and Viktor Orban approach America and Europe, its liberalizmus and globalizmus, as recurrences and reincarnations of szovjetizmus, if not the actual Soviet system itself. They do this while living in a physical, geospatial reality where the Soviet state is no more, and Marxism—outside of a few instances—is a historical ideology in Europe. Here Orban’s account of the EU “rule of law” as a Soviet return is particularly illustrative. For far-right populists today, the Soviet past and its Marxist ideology is the actual present, where there can be proclamations from the Hungarian government about the “great replacement” of “Europeans” by “non-European migrants” along the very lines which caused Majdański to bemoan the “dying out of the proletariat” like the aristocracy of old. Reactionary ideology and reactionary politics both under Communism and after, is about numbers. Numbers of children, of “Poles”, “Hungarians” against the “suicidal policy in the Western world” (Beauchamp 2022). Anticommunism and anti-Marxism have become, for a generation of populist strongmen and “intellectuals,” antiEuropeanism, anti-Americanism and “anti-West-ism.” Such a transformation is to be expected because anti-Communism under the regime was for many conservative dissidents anti-Europeanism

14

FOREWORD

and anti-Westernism. And not just in the work of Majdański, but in the writings of Mihailo Marković. In the case of the latter, there is a plausible case that even Marxist “humanism,” through its account of technological alienation and its critique of America and “the West,” was an incubator of sorts for his later ethnonationalism. The weaponized image of Marxism and the Soviet system as “egalitarian” and “multicultural” allows contemporary populists not only in Eastern Europe, but also France and the United States, to use Soviet memory and “undead” Soviet ideology as a kind of free-floating ideological vector. It functions for them at the same time as the “true face” of America and the European Union. The Soviet past that will not become past is thus a continual sustenance to populists in ways that are barely understood. Thus, the complexity of Soviet philosophy and its post-Soviet iterations is essential for even scholars in “Western” Europe and America. And not only its manifestations but its zombification in the hands of the global far right today. Such a zombification has begun to influence liberal democracies all over the world, but none more so than the United States.

Bibliography Arendt, H. (2009). The Promise of Politics. New York: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Beauchamp, Z. (2022). The European country where “replacement theory” reigns supreme.” Vox, May 19, https://www.vox. com/2022/5/19/23123050/hungary-cpac-2022-replacementtheory (accessed June 11, 2022). Borger, J., Garamvolgyi, F. (2022). Trump shares CPAC Hungary platform with notorious racist and antisemite. The Guardian, May 21, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/ 21/trump-shares-cpac-hungary-platform-racist-antisemite (accessed June 11, 2022). Herf, J. (1984) Reactionary Modernism: Technology, culture, and politics in Weimar and the Third Reich. New York: Cambridge University Press.

SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET PHILOSOPHY

15

"Kresimir". (2018). Dr. Tomislav Sunić: Rasisti i multikulturnjaci u novoj seobi naroda (Dr. Tomislav Sunic: Racists and Multiculturalists in the New Migrations of Peoples). Kamenjar, nd, https://kamenjar.com/dr-tomislav-sunic-rasisti-i-multi kulturnjaci-u-novoj-seobinaroda/?fbclid=IwAR1ihhmnGx N13ypxnaDUBrjakvkrbybQQY4f8N0SHmcLXteVmOQ3xA2f GZs (accessed June 11, 2022). Luppol, I. K. (1930). Lenin i filosofiya: k voprosu ob otnoshenii filosofii k revolyutsii [from Rus.: Lenin and Philosophy: On the question of the relationship of philosophy to revolution]. Moscow: State Publishing House. Majdański, H (1947) Rodzina Wobec Nadchodzącej Epoki [from Polish: The Family Against the Coming Epoch]. Bydgoszcz, Poland: The Polish Printing House Under the State Board. Malia, M. (1995). Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia. New York: Free Press. Sunic, T. (1997). Eastern Europe’s Suicide Pact. Chronicles, July, https://www.unz.com/print/Chronicles-1997jul-00048/ (accessed June 11, 2022). Sunic, T. (2019). Twin Brothers: Homo Sovieticus and Homo Americanus. Arktos, May 22, https://arktos.com/2019/04/ 22/twin-brothers-homo-sovieticus-and-homo-americanus/ (accessed June 11, 2022). Todes, D. P. (1989). Darwin Without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Volockoj, M. V. (1928). Sistema yevgeniki kak biosotsial’noy distsipliny [from Rus.: The System of Eugenics as a Biosocial System]. Moscow: Izdaniye Gosudarstvennogo Timiryazevskogo nauchno-issledovatel’skogo instituta. Vucinich, A. (1963). Science in Russian Culture, 1861-1917. Stanford: Stanford University Press. William N., Schull, J. (1958). Nasledstvennost’ cheloveka. Perevod s angliyskogo i s predisloviyem S. N. Ardashnikova [from Rus.: Human Heredity. Translation from English and with a preface by S. N. Ardashnikov]. Moscow: Publishing House of Foreign Literature.

Editor’s Introduction Philosophy Unchained Introductory Notes on the Post-Soviet Philosophical Condition Mikhail Minakov Philosophy as a discipline transcends national borders, periods, and cultures. Its practitioners—philosophers—form a unique intellectual network that similarly exceeds cultures, nationalities, and temporal borders and, as a result, has given rise to a selfreflexive tradition in which all practitioners participate, addressing age-old questions in new ways and posing new questions for contemporary and future philosophers to take up. Originating in the ancient societies, the philosophical enterprise can be found in very different cultures and epochs up to the present day. Despite the extraordinary cultural and societalinstitutional diversity of the last three millennia, philosophy’s staying power seems to be connected to something essential to humanity, whether it is our capacity to acknowledge and express Being, the power to act in accordance with the principles of reason, the passion to pursue intellectual challenges, or the gift of thinking. In one way or another, philosophy has been practiced by mainstream theorists and isolated tribal groups, citizens of the polis and subjects of empires, leaders and dissidents, cosmopolitans and representatives of nations, liberals and totalitarians, professors in ivory towers and activists on the streets, the high-born and the lowly wretched. And as one recent manifestation of its vast breadth and depth, philosophy lives on in the societies that have emerged in the more than thirty years since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This volume is dedicated to the study of the fate of contemporary philosophy in the countries of Eastern Europe and 17

18

EDITOR’S INTRODUCTION

Central Asia. The unifying feature of this region—namely, its common past as administratively part of the Soviet Union— establishes a shared linkage to both political history and the history of philosophy itself. The creation of the Soviet Union, its power structures, and its human—as well as intellectual—condition was suppressing freedom and reason alike. The dissolution of the Soviet Union was accompanied not only by the collapse of the structures of totalitarian society but also by a formal, intentional process of deSovietization, including the reform and the restructuring of the security services, the abandonment of the command economy, and the dilution of the ideological monopoly of Soviet communism. At the same time, this process liberated opportunities, domestic and international, in science, politics, and business. For philosophers as well, de-Sovietization entailed a process of ambiguous, though radical change: philosophy quickly lost its former significance as a political-ideological tool and, commensurately, sustained a loss of interest on the part of the authorities and society. On the other hand, it gained a long-awaited unshackling from ideological strictures, and philosophers of the former Soviet bloc now found themselves able to communicate with philosophical groups around the world. The chapters in this volume analyze the renewal of the philosophical enterprise on a different tack over the last thirty to forty years and where it has led, in Belarus, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. Despite its immaterial nature, thinking can be in chains. Thoughts can indeed be handcuffed, and minds can surely become captive due to many different reasons: laziness of reason, denial of reality, choice of illusion, adherence to ideology, devotion to religious dogma, or subjugation to power. Human culture and nature are full of ways to turn truth into tools of either subjugation, or emancipation. The cases of Soviet and post-Soviet philosophies represent both trends as the studies on this volume demonstrate. Still, the research in this book provides our readers with the information and analysis to decide for themselves whether there was continuity between Soviet and contemporary philosophy, and whether philosophy was influencing the emancipation of societies

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

19

in the Eastern Europe and Central Asia, whether local philosophical thought was becoming part of the global intellectual landscape, and whether a particular post-Soviet philosophical condition has emerged. The writing of this book was conceived in 2020, but we are publishing it in a time of war, after the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine by the Russian Federation. The intellectual background of this tragedy’s preparation can be found in the chapters on Russian and Ukrainian philosophical development, but not only. In recent thirty years, the unchained philosophy was supportive of both: of the leap into the abyss of unknown or of the longing for being a brick in the pyramid of predefined truth, of meaningful freedom or of destructive violence. And our book is an attempt to reflect on the interconnection between philosophical and political choices made in the past three decades.

1

Soviet Union

The Soviet Philosophical Condition Adventures of Philosophy in the Soviet Union* Mikhail Minakov The philosophical landscape of Eastern Europe is quite rich and diverse today, with arguably far more philosophical schools and doctrines being developed in and around intellectual centers both there and in Northern Eurasia than before 1989–91. The last thirty years have seen explosive growth in philosophical departments, faculties, centers, societies, associations, and publications in the regions’ countries (Bazhanov 1999; Godoń, Jucevičienė & Kodelja 2004; Guseinov & Lektorsky 2009; Tevzadze 2010; Menzhulin 2011; Minakov 2011; Bachmetjevas 2022; Grigorishin 2022; Kūle 2022; Menzhulin 2022). This diversity of post-Soviet philosophical life was—at least until recently—supported by the spread of ideological pluralism, an increase in academic freedom, social emancipation, and the marketization of education. Yet this multitude of philosophical organizations and publications has not changed the impression among Western philosophers that “the (post-Communist) East” no longer generates new ideas, or that the generation of “new ideas” are the consequence of “Western influences.”1 Philosophers of the East seem to have been adapting to—and learning how to think and work in—the new conditions, which can be described in terms of the absence of repression by authorities, the destruction of * 1

This chapter is based on a text previously published in The Ideology and Politics Journal, no. 1, 2022. The author discusses this issue more in: Minakov 2021. See also the sources of the debate: Habermas 1990; Hösle 1992; Frank 1992; Oushakine 2000; Habermas 2018.

21

22

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

ideological monopolies, reduced public interest in philosophical ideas, sporadic bursts of popularity for some popular thinkers, and the hegemony of Western theories and Far Eastern teachings among the general public. This contemporary situation has a tragic and gripping prehistory. In the 20th century, philosophy survived two major caesuras in the East of Europe. The fall of the Russian Empire and the rise of the Soviet Union in 1917–1922, moved philosophy from one of many intellectual practices on the margins of the struggle for power and truth, right into the center of that struggle. Simultaneously, the heightened significance of philosophy made it a subject of control and separation from global intellectual dynamics. Hence, the Soviet philosophical condition constituted an unusual situation for a life of the mind—at least in modern times. This condition was established and developed through several periods until its grand finale in the caesura of 1989–91. Thus, between the 1917–22 and the 1989–91 caesuras, at least three generations of philosophers studied, worked, and laid the ground for the intellectual institutions and practices that can still be seen in the contemporary intellectual landscape of Eastern Europe and Northern Eurasia.2 In this chapter, I offer a retrospective study of the Soviet philosophical condition, demonstrating its features up until the caesura of 1989–91. In the first part, I offer a definition of Soviet philosophy as a specific philosophical condition. In the second part, I offer a periodization and a brief overview of the development of the Soviet philosophical condition. Finally, I identify major tendencies that may have survived the caesura of 1989–91 and that are still visible in diverse post-Soviet philosophies.

2

On the Soviet generations of philosophers, please see Sineokaja 2022 in the Collected Papers volume.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

1

23

Soviet Philosophy as a Condition

1.1 Soviet philosophy as a contested concept If we approach the phenomenon of Soviet philosophy directly— upfront, so to speak—the transformation of this phenomenon into a problematic concept is inevitable. Such a problematization has been constantly manifest since the 1950s, when the first studies of this phenomenon were published in the West. Initially, the debate of scholars studying the Soviet “system” and culture was focused on the relation between Soviet totalitarianism and modernity. Hannah Arendt, the philosopher who laid the foundation for totalitarianism studies, attempted to understand the specificity of the human condition in a totalitarian society in the terms of a “radical break” with modernity’s emancipation and of the subjection of personal experience to the totalitarian collective mind (Arendt 1986, 1989). Despite agreeing with Arendt’s general understanding of totalitarianism, Merle Fainsod defined the Soviet system in terms of “enlightened totalitarianism,” with official Soviet philosophy serving as a tool for total control over scientific and social thought and, paradoxically, continuing the long Enlightenment trends of the rationalization of the world and the emancipation of the human (Fainsod 1965: 9–10; see also a later Kotkin’s argument at: Kotkin 1997: 7). Those scholars who were interested in Soviet philosophy as part of the wider “Soviet system” went deeper into this contradiction. For example, Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski described the role of philosophy as that of an instrument subjecting human reason to the authorities’ interests and totalitarian ideology. For them, Soviet philosophy was inseparable from Marxist ideology, and it was a source of rupture between logical reasoning and everyday experience—the trauma that reproduced a totalitarian syndrome “through education” (Friedrich 1957: 67). And yet, Friedrich recognized that Soviet philosophy was “a modern phenomenon” connected to the emancipatory rationalist practices of modernity, albeit a perverse one (Friedrich 1964: 13).

24

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

This direction in studies of Soviet philosophy continued with Adam Ulam and Bertram Wolfe in the 1960s–80s and then with Sheila Fitzpatrick and Terry Martin in the early 21st century. For them, Soviet philosophy was one of Soviet Modernity’s ambiguous intellectual practices that reproduced the dialectical unity of subjection and emancipation, loyalty and rationality, revolution and tradition, the captive mind and human reason in the constant fight for autonomy (Ulam 1963; Wolfe 1969; Martin 2000; Fitzpatrick 2000, 2007, 2018). In this line of study, Soviet philosophy was mainly seen either as a non-philosophical practice (part of political censorship and ideological brainwashing) or as one of the philosophical schools of a wider Marxist thought. The latter assessment is evident, for example, in works by Józef Bocheński and Gustav Wetter, who challenged the philosophical concepts of Soviet Marxism. They looked at the philosophical processes in the Soviet Union through the lens of anti-Marxism and assessed the quality of Soviet philosophy as “extremely primitive” (Bocheński 1950: 2; see also Wetter 1958; Bocheński 1973). Another approach to the study of Soviet philosophy is illustrated by George Kline, Thomas Blakeley, Helmut Dahm, and Philip Grier, who distanced themselves from the Cold War agenda as well as from the debate between philosophical schools. Their research was done in the framework of what may be called the history of contemporary philosophy. This approach provided them with an opportunity for more nuanced and less politicized research on Soviet philosophy (Blakeley 1961, 1979; Kline 1968; Grier 1978; Dahm, Blakeley & Kline 1988). This approach was continued by James Scanlan, David Bakhurst, and Evert Van der Zweerde from the 1980s into early 2000. These scholars were highly attentive to internal cleavages, different approaches, and the diversity of intellectual practices in the areas of official, academic, and dissident philosophies and of literary-philosophical fiction in the Soviet Union (Scanlan 1985, 1987; Bakhurst 1991, 2002; Van der Zweerde 1998). Accordingly, in the works by these scholars, one can find analysis not only of orthodox Marxist-Leninist philosophy but also of atheism and religious thought, logical theories and the teachings

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

25

of different dialectics, and political theories and semiotics in the Soviet period. For both lines of Western study, Soviet philosophy was an unusual phenomenon not fitting the standards of the Western cultural canon, which constituted a problem for its definition. Soviet philosophy challenged the cultural order that assigned to philosophy its necessary place and limits. It is worth noting that Soviet philosophy was not a subject of discussion by thinkers participating in it. However, it became an issue during and after the caesura of 1989–91. Basically, the issue stemmed from the source just mentioned: the specificity of the phenomenon challenged the cultural orders that were established after the fall of the Soviet Union and during the creation of new societies. In this context, Soviet philosophy was denied its philosophical dignity, it was declared part of the repressive political system, and it was refuted as Marxist philosophy proved its intellectual powerlessness. Also, it was deconstructed and reconstructed as an alternative philosophical practice to the Western cultural order or as an integral part of a long-term national philosophical canon—or else as the several-generations–long rupture in such a canon. The maximalist denial of the philosophical dignity of Soviet philosophy is based on the argument that the Soviet totalitarian system did not provide the free space needed for its public function (Proleev 2003; Dmitiriev 2010; Koriakin 2019). In this connection, Sergij Proleev even called it “anti-philosophy,” a power practice in opposition to intellectual practice (Proleev 2003: 42ff). Meanwhile, Boris Yudin offered to look at Soviet philosophy as an element of the science–authority relationship in the USSR. Yudin explained the dominant loyalty of philosophers (and scholars at large) as the result of an unspoken agreement: the Party protected scientists from the proletariat in exchange for complete, unconditional loyalty (Yudin 1993: 100). Yet there was still room for philosophy to evolve, since the legitimization of Soviet authority needed arguments from both the exact sciences and materialist philosophy. Accordingly, Soviet philosophy developed in a void together with political power, ideologized education, and the sciences (ibid.: 106).

26

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

It is this void that provides grounds for doubt as to whether Soviet philosophy was truly philosophy. Many philosophers have interpreted Soviet philosophy solely as Soviet Marxism. This brand of Marxism went through several cycles of reinterpretation, from Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin and Lev Trotsky to Joseph Stalin-Jugashvili and many later figures who combined theory with political, military, and administrative practices. Anatolij Loj, for example, argued that these reinterpretations reduced Soviet philosophy to a type of “worldview” that dogmatically subjugated human individuals, communities, or society at large to the goals of the revolution (Loj 2003: 46). Anatolij Jermolenko has also supported this argument, making a case that Soviet Marxism—and Soviet philosophy as such—has lost its connection with philosophies outside the Soviet Union; this disconnection and lack of communication led first to the cynicism of the late Soviet Marxists and then towards the complete intellectual and ideological impotence of Soviet Marxism (Jermolenko 2003: 349). Another way to look at philosophical practices in Soviet times is to reject the normative value of the Western canon and to accept their otherness. There are scholars who look at Soviet culture as an alternative to Western modernity (e.g., Arnason 2000; Hoffmann 2003). From this point of view, the case of Soviet philosophy represents the life of philosophy in a “closed society” or a “society of power,” which is different from the life of philosophy in the Western cultural order (Kurennoi 2002; Nemtsev 2010; Minakov 2020). Even though this approach has its drawbacks,3 it opens up an opportunity to see and research what was actually going on in philosophy in the domains of ideas, problems, schools, individual biographies, and the histories of philosophical organizations between 1917 and 1991 in Eastern Europe and Northern Eurasia.

3

These drawbacks are well pointed out by A. Dmitirev, who called the culture of Soviet philosophy a “dead water” that prevented Soviet philosophers from practicing their ideas and made their work senseless in a specific normative philosophical sense (Dmitirev 2010: 22).

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

27

The deconstruction of philosophy’s Sovietness is also accomplished through post-Soviet nationalization. One of the key processes in post-Soviet development was nationalization, a reorientation of public reason toward reinvented nationalities and identity politics in the states that were established on the ruins of the USSR. For some time, this nationalization was based on the equation that post-Soviet meant anti-Soviet. This fundamental equation stemmed from the denial of Sovietness through the establishment of new institutions (divisions of power into branches, presidentialism, and parliamentarism), the acceptance of new values (liberty, money, anomie, and responsibility for one’s own life), and the pursuit of practices (openness to chaos and unpredictability, readiness for active participation in public life, and self-expression) that were either impossible or strictly limited in the Soviet Union. Yet people living in this flow of post-Soviet innovations still needed some orientation, and nationalization was one of the cultural (as well as social and political) processes that offered it.4 In terms of the history of philosophy, this nationalization manifested itself in a reorganization of the national philosophical canon. In some cases, like those described in the studies of 20thcentury Latvian or Lithuanian philosophies by Maija Kūle and Viktoras Bachmetjevas (Kūle 2022; Bachmetjevas 2022), the postSoviet deconstruction of Sovietness has led to the irrelevance of the Soviet philosophical legacy as such for the Latvian and/or Lithuanian philosophical communities. However, in other cases, Georgian, Russian, Ukrainian, or other scholars, while studying the legacies of individual philosophers of the Soviet period, were inevitably brought to the construction of new contexts in which these legacies were reused for philosophical canons. In these studies, ideological conflict between Soviet and post-Soviet worldviews was usually put aside. Instead, researchers focused on the lives of thinkers and their ideas. In this way, the philosophical legacies of Valentin Asmus, Genrikh Batiščev, Vadim Ivanov, Evald Ilyenkov, Volodymyr Jurynec’, 4

On this, see: Brubaker 2011; Kasianov 2012.

28

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Bonifatii Kedrov, Pavel Kopnin, Mikhail Lifšyc, Aleksej Losev, Jurij Lotman, Merab Mamardašvili, and many others returned to the center of attention of contemporary philosophers.5 However, as soon as post-Soviet historians of Soviet philosophy left the biographical and empirical arena, the power of politicization returned, together with general contextual reinterpretations. This politicization could have either apologetic inclinations (as in Tabačkovsky 2002 or Motrošilova 2012, 2018) or manifest as a hypercritical approach (as in Proleev 2003 or Dmitriev 2010), or else it evolved into a reinvention of the nation’s philosophical canon. In the latter case, Soviet philosophy was interpreted as a sort of cultural deposit that supplied post-Soviet national intellectual/ philosophical historians with elements from the philosophers’ biographies and theoretical legacies that would fill the gaps in their canons. Thus, these elements were reinterpreted as parts of Kazakhstani, Lithuanian, Russian, or Ukrainian histories of national philosophy in the 20th century (Donskis 2002; Minakov 2009; Tkačuk et al. 2011; Sydykov et al. 2016; Epstein 2019; Kabelka 2019; Lektorsky & Bykova 2019). This kind of reuse of the Soviet past was both therapeutic for the national traditions and productive in terms of research in the history of philosophy. 1.2 The Soviet philosophical condition Each of the above approaches has strong arguments in support of its vision of Soviet philosophy. Nonetheless, they all have one common denominator: they constantly problematize the phenomenon and contest the concept of Soviet philosophy. Taken together, they create a situation of overthinking in which the wealth of contradictory ideas and interpretations simply leaves no space for involving the Soviet philosophical legacy in the ongoing philosophical dialogue running from ancient philosophers up to today’s thinkers.6 In my opinion, to avoid this hermeneutic 5

6

See: Bystrytsky 2003; Yurynets 2007; Kantor 2009; Motrošylova 2009; Taho-Godi & Taho-Godi 2009; Tolstyh 2009; Lektorskii 2009, 2010a; Arslanov 2010; Popovyč 2010; Tkačuk 2016; Turenko 2019. On philosophy as continued dialogue among its different elements, see Jaspers 1962; Kearney 1984; Collins 2009; Habermas 2015.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

29

obstruction, Soviet philosophy should be reassessed not as a provocative phenomenon in the history of philosophy, but as a specific condition under which philosophy subsisted under challenging conditions for at least three generations of thinkers in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States Soviet philosophy as a philosophical condition was founded not only on the contradiction between the vita contemplativa and the vita activa7 but also on the critical redefinition of the meaning and performance of contemplation/theory and activity/practice. Here, contemplation still meant a withdrawal from active public life, but the theoretical distance of the contemplator was so greatly influenced by the institutions of Soviet thought control, and by the Marxist belief that philosophy is central to the struggle for power that contemplation could have been practiced only in constant cooperation/struggle with public institutions. Simultaneously, due to the strong and lasting ideological monopoly and the absence of the public sphere (at least in the Western meaning of the term) in the socialist state, the public activity of practice was so alienated from the authentic human being and from the aims of communication in the public realm that participation in it was close to an act of existential self-destruction. As a result, the Soviet philosophical condition crucified itself on the philosophical process on the axes of its fundamental contradictions between controlled autonomous contemplation and limited public action, as well as between the vita activa and the vita contemplativa. The harmful effects of this double self-alienation of philosophy’s life were compounded by the disrupted communication between thinkers within the Soviet Union and their colleagues from the outside world. Once part of wider philosophical networks under the Russian empire (beginning from the 18th century and intensifying from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th), individual philosophers and entire schools dropped out of the dialogue among the world’s philosophies in Soviet times. Only Soviet Marxist doctrine 7

Hanna Arendt used this binary opposition to analyze the human condition and philosophy’s role in dealing with the theory–practice split in Western culture.

30

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

remained visible globally, but its philosophical status was doubtful. Within the USSR, the official philosophical “surface” was almost indistinguishable from the official ideology. Meanwhile, closed, often underground philosophical groups lived almost apart from contact with each other and their peers abroad. This was extremely harmful for the life of philosophy in the region since philosophy usually reproduces itself in open, potentially authentic, and preferably uninterrupted communication among different thinkers and schools.8 As I stated above, the Soviet philosophical condition was established as a result of the 1917–22 caesura and lasted until the next caesura in 1989–91. A caesura here means a breach in the continuity of a certain cultural ontology. The revolutionary events in the societies and lands once ruled by the Russian Empire fundamentally changed the conditions of life, practice, and thought between 1917 and 1922. Cultural, social, political, and economic lifestyles changed so much and underwent so much innovation that human beings living in the Soviet Union were in a sense rethrown into the new world. So, the change of 1917–22 was indeed a historical caesura. Yet this caesura went even deeper than these revolutionary changes. What happened in the period of 1917–22 also had a certain ontological status. The human experience of rapid change in those times can be described as a re-Geworfenheit of Dasein. In Heidegger’s existentialist philosophy, a human being—Dasein—is seen as the existence that is always present in a certain temporal/historical situation: it is thrown (geworfen) into the world. The modus of human life is thus in-der-Welt-sein, and the human condition is fundamentally Geworfenheit into the Event-Ereignis.9 In the case of a caesura, we enter into an unusual ontological event wherein it is not human existence, but the world itself, that is “thrown,” while Dasein follows it in an act of re-Geworfenheit. A caesura of this kind

8

9

This account is supported by various arguments of, e.g., an ontological, existential, or sociological nature. See, respectively, Heidegger 2002; Jaspers 2001; Collins 2009. As in Heidegger 1989, 2015.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

31

is an extreme case in which continuity and communication are interrupted not by human agency, but by deeper ontological structures—by Destiny or Being (das Seyn) itself. This means that the experience of such a caesura bears witness to the co-creation of a new world and a new human being: they are recreated in Destiny’s act of rethrowing both—like dice in a game. In the conservative ontology of Heidegger, it is close to impossible to fully express the experience of a human existence being rethrown after the rethrowing of the world. But the conceptual language of Michel Foucault can better help with understanding the ontology of such a deep caesura. In Foucault’s perspective, a caesura can be understood as the simultaneous rupture and reassembling of the ontological foundations of power, the human subject, and truth (Foucault 2005, 2007). Foucauldian intentionality opens up for us an ontological zero-point in which authentic human presence demonstrates itself as grounded in nothingness, as constructed from an event of self-founding wherein power, truth, and the human subject ground themselves by grounding each other—since there is nothing else that can ground them. In this way, a caesura can be understood as more than a break in historical continuity.10 It is the experience of meeting the Nothing in which we can see our true, historically unconditioned selves—in total war, in mass murder, in class struggle, in famine, in proletarian dictatorship—after which the human being, power, and truth re-establish the world and time, along with new power practices, new truth regimes, and a new human condition. For Foucault, the birth of the Western contemporary human subject came in tandem with a disciplined society promoting self-control.11 Similarly, the caesura of 1917–22 gave birth to the Soviet Human, Society, and World, while the caesura of 1989–91 brought them to an end and laid the grounds for our contemporary condition.

10 11

As in Agamben 2004: 12 or Nancy 2000: xii. Foucault 2005: 17ff.; Foucault 2007: 42ff. See also the argument by Munteanu 1996: 46, 112ff.

32

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

The archipelago of the Soviet condition included philosophy as an integral part, as one of its islands. This archipelago needed and desired philosophy to maintain the integrity of its truth regimes, which philosophy did by betraying its own self-interest and self-identity, turning itself into a multilayered construction with Soviet Marxism on the surface (or the top) and many hidden philosophical layers (at the bottom). The official philosophy served the authorities well. Still, philosophy was one of the major transgressive forces that managed to smuggle in ideas from preSoviet times and prepare the way for the caesura of 1989–91 through “ideological diversions.” The Soviet philosophical condition was full of different events and cultural phenomena, and, as that condition, it neither had to harmonize them nor have its own identity.12 The second caesura brought the Soviet philosophical condition to a close. In the several years between 1986 and 1991, philosophy lost its “central role” for the government and for the public. During Perestroika, the modernist discourse of the future, with its interest in logic, dialectics, and universality, was “enriched” (and often replaced) by the conservative orientation towards the past, with its focus on memory, historical justice, and ethnonational particularism in the emerging public space. This emergence of a free public space preconditioned a huge demand for political and social theories, which Soviet philosophy could not offer. As a result, the market of ideas was taken over by various “brands” of foreign philosophies. The decentralization and decommunization of the USSR, along with the nationalization of public discourse in Soviet republics and smaller communities in 1988–89, destroyed the usual hierarchy of philosophical centers and groups. The fall of the East’s autarchy opened the possibility of 12

Despite thousands of professionals who lived by doing philosophy in the USSR, Soviet philosophy has never had its own identity. There were no histories of Soviet philosophy in Soviet times. This is one of the arguments in favor of my interpretation of Soviet philosophy as a philosophical condition (as well as a position) rather than a tradition, event, or phenomenon. In Perestroika, there were some publications with the attempt to formulate this identity (Surovaja drama naroda 1989; Jahot 1991), but the post were done already during the second caesura and had no influence on the Soviet philosophers’’ identity.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

33

communication with the outer world, which first boosted East– West philosophical encounters and soon led to Western philosophical hegemony in the 1990s. Finally, the dissolution of the Union and the launch of new polities initiated a new era in the life of philosophy in Eastern European and Northern Eurasian societies. If the first caesura was aimed at claiming a monopoly on truth, a project that was never fully implemented but that greatly damaged the life of philosophical thought and the quality of intellectual debate in the USSR, the second caesura did not similarly result in big projects: philosophy lost its public influence for good and for all. Some praised this loss, some mourned it, but there is no doubt that the social and academic marginalization of philosophers has caused them to pay tribute for their freedom in the coin of growing disrespect for rationality, universality, and contemplation in general. So, what specifically in the Soviet philosophical condition has elevated philosophy so high in terms of public authority and dragged it so low in terms of contemplative depth? This is the question I will answer in the following part of this chapter.

2

Periods in the Establishment and the Demise of the Soviet Philosophical Condition

An in-depth study of the history of the Soviet philosophical condition has yet to be written. In this study, I would like just to identify the major stages of this condition’s establishment, evolution, and demise. I propose to isolate these stages based on the specific nature of the Soviet philosophical condition, which gave political and ideological factors in intellectual development equal importance to philosophical ones, and which manifested the void just described between elevated practical significance and depressed contemplative depth. For this reason, I find the periodization of the development of Soviet philosophy offered by Vladislav Lektorskij and Marina Bykova unbalanced and too much oriented toward political processes. In particular, they offered just three periods in

34

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

the development of Soviet philosophy: (1) the post-revolutionary decade, (2) the epoch of Stalin, and (3) the post-Stalin era (Lektorskij & Bykova 2019: 4–9). I agree that these three periods work well for tracing the external, political preconditions for the evolution of the Soviet science and other intellectual practices through the period from 1922 through 1986. However, the logic of this periodization misses too much detail to understand the development of philosophy as such in the Soviet period, and it does not relate to the processes in those “levels” and “circles” in which philosophy lived in the Soviet times. I should note here that the fragmentation of Soviet philosophy into such levels and circles is not unique: the entire Soviet society and culture was compartmentalized, a quality very well analyzed in the study by Mark Lipovetsky, Maria Engström, Klavdia Smola, and others (Lipovetsky et al. 2021). In both Soviet philosophical and cultural processes, a common feature was the fragmentation of levels beneath the official surface (which was fully controlled by party and government structures) into underground groups (which could be controlled more, less, or not at all by the official structures). This vertical division was also fragmented horizontally into circles, which existed on each of those levels in different Soviet republics and intellectual centers.13 If this fragmented character of the Soviet philosophical condition is taken into account along with the balance between philosophical and political factors, five distinctive stages in the history of Soviet philosophy can be identified: 1) the establishment of the Marxist hegemony and degradation of philosophical diversity, 1922–35; 2) the spread and hegemony of ideological frenzy, 1935–55; 3) an ideological confusion and incipient return of philosophical pluralism, 1956–64; 4) the professionalization of philosophy and proliferation of ideological cynicism, 1965–85; 13

This horizontal diversity has been studied by various scholars in different postSoviet countries; just to name a few: Jeu & Blakeley 1982; Donskis 2002; Minakov 2009a, 2009b; Sydykov et al. 2016.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

35

5) a decline of ideological monopoly and fuller return of philosophical pluralism, 1986–91. 2.1 The first caesura and the establishment of Marxist hegemony, 1922–35 This period starts right after the first caesura. The launch of the new philosophical condition was characterized by the search for a new type of institutionalization for philosophy and a new role for it in culture, society, and politics. This quest can be described as consisting of five interconnected tendencies: 1) the beginning of the division of philosophers into those regarded as correct (i.e., supportive, loyal, and publishable) and those branded as wrong (i.e., disloyal, hostile, and nonpublishable); 2) experimentation with new ways of uniting philosophers, which would lead to the creation of ideological platforms able to work in the frameworks established by historical and dialectical materialism; de-platforming of non-Marxist philosophies; 3) the establishment of the hegemony of a new Marxist lingo supporting the dominance of Marxist concepts in philosophy at large; 4) the introduction of pre-totalitarian Soviet censorship of philosophical works and the creation of an early system of Soviet philosophical institutions; and 5) the final establishment of an ideological monopoly on philosophical and general education. The Soviet cultural condition was severed from the imperial Russian one by World War I, two revolutions in 1917 (the bourgeois revolution in February and the socialist revolution in October), many national revolutions from Poland through Turkestan from 1918–22 (continuing, in some regions, until 1924), civil wars, and many foreign interventions. This caesura was driven by the worldview of a civil war that made use of nationalist or socialist classifications, but in fact fostered profound distrust and paranoia among neighbors, local communities, and ethnic and religious

36

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

groups. After the Bolshevik government took control over most of the Russian imperial provinces and launched its Union project at the end of 1922, the new order—not only political, but also cultural, social, and economic—was established. This order was to be constructed in accordance with Marxist doctrine, specifically as understood by the Bolsheviks and national communists in the Soviet republics. In their political imagination, philosophical practice was part of a wider class struggle, and philosophical ideas mattered for the construction of socialism and for the promotion of the World Socialist Revolution. Hence, the distinction between philosophers who were correct (loyal Marxists) and those who were wrong (disloyal Marxists and non-Marxists) became an important part of public life around the Soviet Union. In turning the new country into a springboard for the World Revolution, the Bolshevik central and republican governments had to ensure that Marxism-Leninism would face no internal obstacles to its global aims. Accordingly, during the 1920s, Marxist doctrine repositioned itself from being one of many philosophical platforms to functioning as a hegemonic platform. However, its movement into this central position was not as repressive as in later periods. Still, in this decade Soviet philosophy slowly began to form the philosophical practice and style that would later become its official surface. An important event for the formation of the Soviet philosophical condition was the practice of forced emigration for social scholars and philosophers, also known as “philosophers’ trains and steamboats.” The Bolshevik government expelled Nikolaj Berdyaev (1874–1948), Semion Frank (1877–1950), Nikolaj Losskij (1870–1965), Pitirim Sorokin (1889–1968), and many other non-Marxist philosophers, legal thinkers, historians, and economists from the country in 1922 (Osharov 1973; Glavackij 2002). This governmental decision can be seen as relatively “mild,” as it stopped short of the physical destruction of intellectuals resorted to in times of civil war—or during Stalin’s rule. After 1922 there were cases of repression of “white” philosophers/social thinkers (through imprisonment or execution), but the Bolsheviks’

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

37

attention was mainly directed at the creation of organizations where loyal Marxist thinkers could work, offer theoretical and practical solutions for socialist state-building, and spread their teaching to the masses. The Socialist Academy of Social Sciences (created in 1918, but almost non-functional until 1923) was reorganized into the Communist Academy in 1924. Simultaneously, a network of Institutes of Red Professors had been developing since 1921 to meet the growing demand for loyal professors in educational institutions. In addition, both systems provided the Soviet central and republican party structures, governments, and Red Army units with personnel capable of conducting educational activities and propaganda in the Marxist spirit. At the same time, throughout the 1920s and into the early 1930s, several alternative philosophical movements were present in public space and academia alongside Marxist philosophy. Although the “philosophical steamboats” struck a decisive blow to the quality and depth of the philosophical process in the early 1920s, many non-Marxists, including Mikhail Bakhtin (1895–1975), Boris Fokht (1875–1946), Gustav Špet (1879–1937), Lev Vygotskij (1896–1934), and the young Alexej Losev (1893–1988), were able to work and publish.14 In addition, a significant number of classic philosophical texts were translated and published in the 1920s, including texts unrelated to Marxism. Only after 1929–31 did these translations increasingly focus on materialist philosophers, their predecessors, and those who could be regarded as part of that tradition. The translation of these philosophical works came to an end by the mid-1930s. Still, between 1923 and 1935, Russian translations of works by Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, Toland, La Mettrie, Diderot, Helvetius, Holbach, Kant, Priestley, Fichte, Hegel, Schelling, 14

I should also note that there was a space for intellectual practices on the boundaries of literature, critique, and philosophy that were open for new ways of thinking, philosophizing, and writing—with their own intercultural and interdisciplinary dialogue—in the cultural centers of the USSR: Moscow, Leningrad, Kharkiv, Odessa, Kyiv and Minsk. The example of such new spaces is the Soviet modernisms so well analyzed in: Babak & Dmitiriev 2021.

38

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Feuerbach, and other philosophers were published; several texts were also translated into Georgian, Ukrainian, and Uzbek. This translation program significantly advanced philosophical studies and conceptual language—both Marxist and non-Marxist—in the USSR. Marxist philosophical textbooks were also designed and published in significant print runs—on a scale much larger than in pre-revolutionary times. Unlike later-stage publications, these textbooks presented quite different interpretations of Marxism, including some closer to Lenin or Trotsky. This period predated the institution of the “magistral line of the party,” an ideological interpretation of Marxist-Leninist dogmas defined in public acts of the party that varied over time and guided philosophical work at the official surface. Because this institution had not yet been created, the first period of Soviet philosophy was the heyday of early non-dogmatic Soviet Marxism. This area has been studied only sporadically and still awaits systemic research. It was during this period that such thinkers as Valentin Asmus (1894–1975), Vladimir Brušlinskij (1900–1992), Ivan Boričevskij (1886–41), Pavel Blonskij (1884–1941), Boris Černyšev (1896–1944), Aleksandr Deborin (1881–1963), Olga Freidenberg (1890–1955), Nikolai Kareеv (1850–1931), Aleksandr Makovel’skij (1884–1969), Dmitrij Mordukhai-Boltovskij (1876–1952) and Viktor Serežnikov (1873– 1944) actively worked and published their philosophical (and ideological) studies. An example of partial openness in the emerging official Marxist philosophy is the famous discussion between “mechanists” (Liubov’ Axelrod (1868–1946), Arkadij Timiriazev (1880–1955), Sandor Varjas (1885–1939), I. Skvortsov-Stepanov (1870–1928), V. Sarabjanov (1886–1952)) and “dialecticians” (Deborin, Jan Sten (also Janis Stienis, 1899–1937), Kareev, Grigorij Bammel’ (1900– 1939)) concerning the status of Marxist philosophy in relation to science and the authorities. On the one hand, the styles of expression and argumentation in this debate portrayed the Soviet Marxism of that period as a system of views open to interpretation and debate. On the other hand, in the process, both sides—in addition to using philosophical

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

39

arguments—called on the authorities to intervene and repress their opponents. These calls were attentively listened to by party leadership and security services, and by the early 1930s, philosophical debates often resulted in the expulsion of philosophers from the losing group and the increased attention of party leadership (and availability of special services) to the philosophical winners. The model in which losing the philosophical debate meant loss of one’s job and then of one’s freedom was pioneered in the 1929–30 discussion between Deborin and Vladimir Vernadsky (1863–1945) on the connection between science and materialist philosophy and further tested out in the 1930–32 discussion between “Bolshevizers” (Mark Mitin (1901–1987), Pavel Judin (1899–1968), Vasilij Ral’tsevič (1893–1957)) and followers of Deborin. This newly minted model then led to the repression of the representatives of the failing group, which was usually presented as a “wrong direction in the interpretation” of Marxist ideas. The same model was reproduced in all educational and scientific institutions, down to the lowest level and to the most politically neutral disciplines, like genetics or linguistics. The way for totalitarian Stalinist society was being prepared not only by the Bolshevik authorities but also by many Soviet intellectuals. In the process, philosophical contemplation was becoming more and more public: philosophical thinking was already regarded as political practice, an action that could be judged either as loyal behavior supporting the proletarian revolution or as a crime against the communist cause. Throughout this period, changes in philosophical language became increasingly evident. First, the translations of philosophical literature into Russian and other languages enriched the materialist and non-materialist lexicons. But the centralization of power that began around 1927/29 also led to (1) the mobilization of “forces on the ideological front” with strengthened internal propaganda and censorship, (2) the intensification of anti-religious “struggle” and the first wave of destruction of churches by officials and party activists, and (3) new acts against private property and in favor of big collective economic actors.

40

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Altogether, these shifts in policy increased the use of censorship, repression, and violence against those working in philosophy, the humanities, and the social and natural sciences. Part of this censorship was carried out by means of linguistic revision. In Moscow and in the Soviet republics, official languages were reformed twice, first in the 1920s through translations and the creation of new dictionaries oriented to the revolutionary drive toward “new proletarian cultures of Soviet peoples,” and again in 1927–34 during the early Stalinist revisions aimed at the unification of the Russian and national languages. Each time, the reforms meant a rapid increase in the use of terms peculiar to Marxism. Increasingly, these terms were also used all too often not only in philosophy and scientific literature but also in the mass media and in the daily communication of propagandists. The adoption of this lingo into philosophy seriously restricted non-historicist, nonMarxist ways of speaking and thinking. Marxist jargon became almost the universal language of philosophy at most levels, from Mitin’s hegemonistic pamphlets to Losev’s pre-imprisonment idealistic works (Losev 1928; Mitin et al. 1930). Furthermore, the education of philosophers survived radical changes in this period. Initially, the training of philosophers in the Soviet Union was canceled from 1923 to 1926. The training of Marxist theoreticians was mainly conducted in the Institutes of Red Professors. However, by 1926 the low quality of Marxist studies and the lack of educated cadres for the party posts was too evident, so the party leadership approved the reopening of a philosophy department at Moscow University (in the department of history and archaeology). The only professors there were Marxists. In 1931, philosophers and psychologists at Moscow State University withdrew to form a new, separate institution, the Moscow Institute of History, Philosophy, and Literature (MIFLI). This institution served as a model for the creation of ideological “educationalphilosophical” institutions in Leningrad, Kazan, Kharkiv, Kyiv, Tbilisi, and other scientific-administrative centers of the Union. Training in philosophy was spreading across Soviet educational institutions to achieve a dual task: (1) to develop “the theory and practice of socialism” and (2) to train workers for

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

41

“socialism’s construction” (Mitin 1936: 4, 22). In addition, scholars at these philosophical centers participated in debates with their foreign colleagues from both communist and non-communist networks through publications or (much less often) in personal meetings. This initial impulse was a substantial part of the philosophical education up until the very end of the Soviet condition, and even survived in many countries. Thus, the first period in the evolution of the Soviet philosophical condition was a time of differentiating philosophical practices into two primary categories (correct and wrong), accumulating institutional and cadre potential for the development of Marxist philosophy, and creating mechanisms for thought control in public space and in academia. Despite the constantly growing ideologization of education and philosophical work, there was still some room for non-Marxist philosophy and for a range of Marxist-Leninist positions. This was also the period in which the chasm between contemplation and practice in Soviet philosophy was effectively set up. 2.2 The stage of ideological frenzy, 1935–55 During this stage, the Soviet philosophical condition received its “classical” formulation. If the philosophical development of the 1920s and early 1930s transpired in “herbivore style,” with limited repression, the traumatic, “carnivorous” experience of the Stalin era laid down several matrices in the foundation of philosophical practices that can still be witnessed today, thirty years after the USSR’s dissolution. Among these matrices were: 1) official ideology was treated as the only philosophical practice; 2) a justification of government actions via moral codes and official histories based on a patriotic metaphysics; 3) a rupture between philosophical education and research through the division between universities and academic institutes;

42

MIKHAIL MINAKOV 4) governmental control of philosophical (and wider intellectual) studies through the actions of loyal philosophers, party activists, and security services; 5) strict differentiation between official and non-official philosophy, systematic repression of dissident thinking, institutionalization of isolated circles of philosophical thought avoiding any public presence, etc.

One of the results of the Stalinist revolution in the USSR that took place between 1927 and 1935 was an ideological frenzy—a mixture of the authorities’ repressive policies, societal acceptance of the logic of the new class struggle, absolute ideological monopoly, purges in all professional communities (including those of philosophers), and the establishment of a totalitarian system that filled most public and private lacunae. This ideological frenzy engulfed the upper floors of Soviet philosophy, and only isolated thinkers, like Bakhtin or Losev, could survive by reducing the space of free philosophy to texts written not for publication or conversations with select, trusted people. It is during this period that the unified ideological doctrine of Marxist-Leninist philosophy (the party’s so-called “magistral line”), in the Stalinist interpretation, was first coined. This is when the ideological content of the official surface of Soviet philosophy was finally articulated and refined several times before the death of Joseph Stalin-Jugashvili (1879–1953) and the start of deStalinization in 1956–58. This indoctrination was supported by the split between philosophical education and research. Separate institutions, such as the Communist Academy and various Institutes of Red Professors, were merged into the Academy of Sciences, which united research institutes subordinated to the Union and to the governments of the Soviet republics. The totalitarian rupture between centers of research that belonged to the Academy and centers of education (profession-oriented institutes and universities) deepened. The higher education system proliferated the ideologically charged materials approved by authorities for the production of “ideological workers” and loyal intelligentsia, the most faithful of

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

43

whom were allowed to engage in theoretical philosophical research within the framework of the Academy. An important factor in the development of the Soviet philosophical condition was the formation of an ideological control network in all educational and research centers. In 1936, the party’s Central Committee issued a decree “On Pedological Perversions” which, upon its publication, established the system of total party control over education: it launched control over the content of education, the appointment of professors and teachers, and even the style of teaching. Two years later, the Short Course of the Bolshevik Party’s History was published. Its fourth chapter—”On Dialectical and Historical Materialism”—was written by Joseph Stalin-Jugashvili (Istorija Vsesojuznoj… 1938). This short chapter effectively defined the official doctrine of Soviet Marxism, which survived almost unchanged in educational courses on historical and materialist dialectics up until 1991. The instructions for applying Stalinist material to philosophical and general education were set forth in the November 1938 resolution of the Central Committee through the system that had been in place since 1936. The Central Committee’s Department of Propaganda and Agitation was created in 1939 to administer philosophical education and research—the philosophical process on the official surface. Stalin’s chapter laid out the required structure for the teaching of historical and dialectical materialism and the writing of philosophy textbooks. Academic philosophical research was also required to orient to this text. Andrei Ogurcov has described the features of this orientation well: The fetishization of the clash of cultures and ideological movements, among other factors, led to the assertion of the idea that the class struggle intensified during the construction of socialism and served the ideological justification for repression… the destruction of entire scientific schools and the murder of individual scholars. (Ogurcov 1989: 356)

Philosophy was specifically identified as a central field of struggle: here, the proletarian revolution was to cope with bourgeois ideologies by means of philosophical contemplation and practice.

44

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

The official surface of Soviet philosophy was transformed into the “camp” of Marxists-Leninists-Stalinists who were obliged to contribute to the struggle for the emancipation of man, to reflect upon the class nature of philosophical teachings, and to participate in the global liberation of humanity from self-alienation. Party control over philosophical thought, as well as over all the sciences, had been systematically reducing the space for unofficial levels of philosophy. It was during this period that works of non-Marxist and dissident Marxist philosophers were censored, moved to library shelves with highly restricted access, or destroyed (together with their authors). Non-Leninist foreign thought— which makes up the bulk of 20th-century philosophy—was mainly out of reach for philosophers and the public. The repression of active philosophers empowered Stalinist philosophers (e. g., Mitin, Judin, Mikhail Kammari (1889–1965)) to lead the purges of their opponents. Thus, Kareev, Ivan Luppol (1896–1943), Semion Semkovskij (1883–1937), Sten, Špet, Pavel Florenskij (1882–1937), and hundreds of other philosophers were repressed, or killed, or died in prisons, or were deprived of work in philosophical institutions. If the content and ideological control network of the official Soviet philosophy were created in 1936–39, the original philosophers and lasting institutes that worked within the established framework arrived after World War II, in the late 1940s to early 1950s. World War II, with its extermination of multiethnic populations and cultural rhizomes throughout Eastern Europe, the existential trauma of the survivors of two waves of total war, and the collective experience of participation and victory in the war, changed Soviet society ontologically. If communist rule prior to World War II was, at least partially, seen as the regime that took over because of the civil war, after 1945 it became a legitimate government that had saved the population from physical extermination by the Nazi Germans and their allies. These experiences and this legitimacy propelled the Marxist impulse for the development of philosophical thought, not only on in officialdom, but also at other levels and centers around the Soviet republics (Dubrovskij 2022; Korsakov 2022). Furthermore, many

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

45

philosophers and humanities scholars, having moved to Siberian and Central Asian cities during the war, stayed on, giving a boost to philosophical schools there. Finally, the gigantic reconstruction program of the western regions of the USSR that had experienced massive destruction during the war also supported an ambiguous process of return for Soviet philosophy. Philosophical centers (university faculties, departments in institutes, and/or academic research institutes) were established or reopened in Chisinau, Kyiv, Leningrad, Minsk, Moscow, Riga, Vilnius, and many other cities. At the same time, these centers were to promote Soviet Marxism and support ideological control over the populations that had been under Nazi occupation. These populations were now permanently suspected of collaboration or disloyalty, and ideological control over them was part of internal security policy. By 1950, the network consisting of the central and republican Academies of Sciences, universities with philosophy faculties, and post-graduate and doctoral schools were fully established or restored. As of 1946, there were 4,836 educators in the Soviet system of science and education, of whom 44 were doctors of philosophical sciences (habilitated doctors), while 75 percent had no academic degree. The philosophical educational institutions, despite ideological control, were disseminating knowledge of philosophy (albeit with a Soviet Marxist twist). A special role in maintaining intellectual life was played by the history of philosophy, which opened up space for encounters with classical thought. Contemporary foreign philosophical literature was rarely translated, and access to it was limited to special sections of libraries. Still, the educational system started producing large multilingual works on the history of philosophy. Despite the partisan and class-based approach and the reinvigorated ideological frenzy of 1946–52, through these philosophical works, the system fostered general educated interest in rational thought, logic, dialectic, the methodology of scientific cognition, and the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. The first semiofficial student clubs were organized, providing humble platforms

46

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

for debates on dialectic and the logic of scientific discovery, which were later continued at much deeper levels.15 To sum up, the Soviet philosophical condition in this period acquired the status of an officially central discipline. Because of this special status, strict—in fact, totalitarian—control was established over philosophical thinking and debate. Philosophers had either to accept the “magistral line” doctrines, or hide underground to survive, or die. The ideological monopoly peaked in this period, casting both philosophical contemplation and practice into the chasm of existential impossibility. As the “main scientific discipline,” philosophy was forced to combine ideological tasks with proper philosophical aims and with the role of supervising the sciences’ participation in what the Soviet bureaucracy’s lingo called “the practice of socialist reconstruction.” In this period, the surface of official philosophy was institutionalized and integrated with the party and security bodies, while non-official philosophy was forced to a minimal existence. 2.3 Ideological confusion and incipient return of philosophical pluralism, 1956–64 The death of Joseph Stalin in 1953 and the subsequent fight over succession began a process of slow de-Stalinization in the Soviet Union. The second half of the 1950s turned out to be a period of philosophical reanimation (Lektorskij & Bykova 2019; Dubrovskij 2022). Some lacunae in the public space emerged for non-official philosophy (as well as for other intellectual practices, from poetry to mysticism) with the Khrushchev Thaw, when the “cult of [StalinDjugashvili’s] personality” was denied at the 20th Congress of the CPSU. For the Soviet philosophical condition, this meant a return to communication between the different levels and circles of philosophy and the opening of interdisciplinary debates. The thaw, however, did not end the supremacy of Marxism-Leninism on the official level. The Soviet system still needed some changes to reshape power relations and reinvigorate the truth regime in the 15

On these groups in the late Stalinist period, see Lektorskij & Bykova 2019; Korsakov 2022; Grigorishin 2022.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

47

Soviet Union. As Adam Ulam well expressed it, the Soviet power system required periods of both increase and decrease in the degree of terror to be effective (Ulam, 1963: 399). In consequence, the Soviet philosophical condition remained structurally unchanged, although the life of thought at the lower levels and in marginal centers was much more active in this period. In this period, philosophy was given a certain space for its own reorganization. If in the previous post-war period philosophical institutions grew in number, after 1956 it was evident that these institutions began to experience qualitative change, especially in terms of the people taking the lead in them. In the Soviet republics, new heads of institutes of philosophy were appointed, and new deans of philosophy faculties were elected. Moreover, post-war philosophers started publishing articles with views and ideas departing from the “magistral line.” These publications promoted reassessment of the “ideological frenzy” period and philosophy’s role in it.16 In this new stage, publications in “samizdat” form took on the main role in disseminating information about local dissident and Western philosophical thought (Komaromi 2012; Gordeeva 2020). Thanks to samizdat, a forgotten culture of free-thinking philosophizing began to revive in certain levels and circles. However, neither the distribution of these texts nor the speed of discussion could satisfy the need for normal philosophical communication. Also, these unofficial publications were mainly focused on issues raised in Russian philosophical or theological centers, while Belarussian, Georgian, Lithuanian, or Ukrainian thinkers were published only sporadically in samizdat (Bungs 1988; Zisserman-Brodsky 2003; Anders 2020; Melnykova 2018). These conditions of ideological confusion also created a chance for official philosophical institutions to bloom. The resonance of philosophical development through most of the levels and centers gave researchers like Florovskij and Epstein grounds to call it a philosophical awakening (Florovskij 1998: 17; Epstein 2019: 6). Mikhail Epstein, who studied works by philosophers of this period 16

Especially in works by A. Solzhenitsyn, B. Djakonov, and others.

48

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

extensively, offered a summary of eight philosophical directions that were defined in the late 1950s–60s and developed into the 1980s, with some impact on philosophies after the caesura of 1989– 91 (Epstein 2019: 10–13). My own research supports Epstein’s findings, although I studied philosophical work not only in the Russian centers of the USSR, but also in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, and Ukraine. The first direction is what can be called late Soviet Marxism, which diverged into nationalist and humanist strands. The union of Marxism with nationalism was instigated by Stalin-Jugashvili’s article “Marxism and Problems of Linguistics” (2008 [1950]). Epstein is right in suggesting that in this text, the Marxist concept of class gave way to the “national unity” embodied in the “national language” and supported the proletarian case around the world (Epstein 2019: 10). However, it is important to note that there were different traditions of the Marxism-nationalism merger in many Soviet republics well before Stalin-Jugashvili’s text; the article, however, legitimized such merger in the Soviet philosophical condition. This merger has later influenced political philosophy in Russia in the 1980s, but even before this, it had influenced philosophers in Georgia, Lithuania, and Ukraine to raise the issue of the legitimacy of national cultures in the world proletarian revolution and in the Soviet Union’s development in the 1970s (Dziuba 1974; Gamsakhurdia 1976; on this, see also Vaitiekunas 1965; Parming 1977; Duik & Karatnycky 1990; Johnston 1993). This tendency was also connected with the non-Marxist philosophy of national spirit, oriented toward Slavophilism, different ethnonationalisms, and the neotraditionalism of thinkers like Rene Guenon and Giulio Evola (Julius Evola) (Epstein 2019: 12). I would also include here the Heideggerian influence that was interpreted by some philosophical groups as the ontology of (ethno)national spirit, which is still an influential tendency in Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine (De George 1965; Sverdiolas & Kačerauskas 2009; Karpenko 2014; Kavaliauskas 2018; Sharpe 2020). The second Epstein’s direction was the Marxist humanist tendency also had its roots in the 1950s, but it was connected with the Russian translation of Marx’s Economic and Philosophical

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

49

Manuscripts (1844). This tendency was critical for the deStalinization of Soviet Marxism-Leninism and offered the possibility of “socialism with a human face.” This line came under pressure after the suppression of the Prague Spring in 1968 and returned in Perestroika times after 1986 (Epstein 2919: 10). Its characteristic ideas can also be found in the leftist dissident thought of the 1970s. Another direction in Soviet philosophy of that period was connected with neo-rationalism, structuralism, and general methodology. In this area, philosophical study was entering the fields of the natural sciences and humanities on the issues of research methods and the methodology of scientific cognition as such. Here, philosophers were allowed to work with a lesser degree of ideological control, which resulted in interdisciplinary studies in formalism, semiotics, general systems theory, cultural studies, social organizations, and cybernetics (Epstein 2019: 10–11; see also Waldstein 2008 and Grigorishin 2022).17 This direction of theoretical studies and research was widely practiced in post-Soviet academies of the 1990s. The direction that Epstein called personalism and liberalism was a Soviet philosophical and literary reception of post-war European existentialism (mainly represented by the ideas of Sartre and Camus) along with reinterpretations of Dostoevsky’s, Berdiaev’s, and Lev Shestov’s ideas. It gave an impetus to many philosophical works at both official and underground levels and equally inspired leftist and liberal dissidents supporting human rights as a

17

It is worth mentioning that this line starts even before 1956. As the study of Ilya Grigorishin shows, the Moscow Logical Circle was active since 1952/3, and it was a space that gave life to Georgij Ščedrovickij-led metodologija movement, a specific Soviet philosophical movement distant to Marxism and supported by some party and government bodies (Grigorishin 2022: 88). However, I do not agree with Grigorishin’s conclusion that 1960s–1980s were the years of the Soviet Marxism’s retreat (Grigorishin 2022: 88-90). Yes, the Soviet Marxism was losing its “philosophical quality” due to increasing cynicism and aversion of new generation of philosopher to other questions where Marxism had a lesser significance; but it was also reinstated its hegemony under Mikhail Suslov, and it was far more proliferated in the educational system than under Stalin.

50

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

foundation for social progress (Epstein 2019: 11; see also Shlapentokh 1990: 22ff). Soviet philosophy and theory of culture, or culturology, was an attempt to legitimize the idea of cultural dialogue in the field defined by Soviet Marxism and the doctrine of class struggle. There were Soviet philosophers who, in a way, continued the theoretical work of Spengler, Florenskij, and Bakhtin with the key concepts of dialogue, otherness, polyphony, and carnival (Epstein 2019: 11; see also Dragadze 1978; Bibler 2009; Soboleva 2016). There was also a growing influence of Christian thought on Soviet philosophers. In Russia, this return of Christian thought related to the impact of literary works by Pasternak and Solzhenitsyn, while in the Soviet republics it was influenced by other sources, including Ukrainian Greek Catholic, Lithuanian Catholic, and Georgian Orthodox theologians (Gobar 1978; Vardys 1982; Senyk 2002). In 1988, when the Soviet leadership allowed celebrations of the 1,000th anniversary of Rus’ baptism, the religious renaissance began using the foundations laid by these underground religious-philosophical streams. This philosophical awakening was also connected with the returning influence of cosmism and mysticism. The Thaw allowed various gnostic, occult, and theosophical doctrines back into discussions in philosophical circles, where they were synthesized with modern scientific theories. In this context, the legacy of Konstantin Ciolkovskij, Nikolai Roerich, Vladimir Vernadsky, and other thinkers was reinvented and turned into influential doctrines confessed in groups around the USSR (Epstein 2019: 13; see also Menzel 2013; Siddiqi 2016; Terbish 2020). The eight years of “ideological confusion” provided shortlived liberation to official philosophical centers not only in Moscow and Leningrad but also in other cities like Almaty, Kazan’, Kyiv, Tbilisi, and Vilnius. For example, contemporary Ukrainian philosophy is rooted in the processes of this period. With the arrival of Pavel Kopnin in Kyiv as director of the Institute of Philosophy (of the Ukrainian Academy of Science), a long process of institutionalization and capacity-building in the philosophical practice of the Ukrainian SSR began. Kopnin dared to link seminars

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

51

(in historical and dialectical materialism, as well as in philosophy of science) in the institute with the philosophy faculty of Kyiv State University, which resulted in the creation of an entire generation of Ukrainian philosophers. The University itself underwent reorganization when the history and philosophy faculty were “merged” and new departments were established: the Department of the History and Theory of Atheism, which served as the center of anti-religious propaganda in the enlarged USSR; the Department of Modern Philosophy; and the Laboratory of Social Research, which became the first center of sociology in the Ukrainian SSR. As in Moscow, official philosophy partially began communicating with non-loyal and dissident thinkers. Vasyl Lisovyj, a witness to these processes, described this communicative situation in the following way: There were no sharp borders between the broad intellectual and cultural movement of the 1960s … and professional (academic) philosophy—not only in terms of ideas, but also in terms of personalities. (Lisovyj 2007: 64)

As an example, Lisovyj refers to the fact that dissidents Ivan Dzyuba (1931–2022), Vasyl Stus (1938–1985), Jevhen Sverstyuk (1928–2014), and attended universities or institutes, while Mykhailo Braichevs’kyj (1924–2001), Mykhailyna Kocjubyns’ka (1931–2011), Ivan Svitlyčnyj (1929–1992), and others officially worked in academic centers. This situation had a positive effect on both groups of thinkers. Ukrainian non-official philosophy was a source of non-communist ideas, which took both liberal democratic and national conservative forms. The former was directed at the democratization of the USSR and the establishment of a liberal regime in all republics of the Union. Meanwhile, the national conservatives gravitated toward ethnocultural values and promoted a nationalist program. For its part, academic philosophy increasingly focused on the study of logic, dialectic, and scientific methodology, thereby developing the rationalist virtues of Soviet Ukrainian philosophy. At this time, the history of philosophy was the disciplinary space where non-Marxist philosophical research was possible.

52

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

This thaw was short-lived, but the ideological disorientation of the authorities gave philosophers an opportunity to deal with the totalitarian trauma, restore some elements of doctrinal pluralism, and advance several long-term directions that were partially connected with foreign philosophical centers and continued to grow until after the second caesura. 2.4 The professionalization of philosophy and the proliferation of ideological cynicism, 1965–85 The 1964 Brezhnev coup was followed by the establishment of Mikhail Suslov’s neo-Stalinist ideological policy, which tried to control the results of the Thaw, including those in philosophy. At the time, Soviet philosophy was being further institutionalized at the official and semi-official levels, while communication with foreign philosophers was more open for those Soviet scholars who were regarded as loyal. Moreover, philosophical education, while remaining essentially dogmatic, was somewhat improving. According to A. Ogurtsov, in 1975 there were 4,370 students studying philosophy with the philosophy faculties of seven universities, namely the universities in Almaty, Kyiv, Leningrad, Moscow, Rostov, Tbilisi, and Ural (in Sverdlovsk). In the 1970s, these faculties prepared about 800 specialists in philosophy annually. As of 1976, 13,745 philosophy professors were teaching Marxist-Leninist philosophy throughout the higher educational institutions of the USSR. At that time, there were 351 habilitated doctors and 6,554 candidates of philosophical sciences among them. The highest qualification in philosophical studies was provided by post-graduate programs at the universities, the academic institutes, the Academy of Social Sciences under the CPSU Central Committee and republican party organizations, and the Higher Party Schools (Ogurtsov 1989: 7ff). The Soviet philosophical condition involved ever more professionals in philosophy—educated intellectuals whose ideas mattered and who were permanently in the situation of facing the impossible choice stemming from the practice–contemplation double alienation.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

53

Soviet philosophy dwelt in university faculties that grew in terms of people involved and new departments established. These departments focused on the allowed philosophical areas and themes. For example, the philosophy faculty of Kyiv State University, after it was restored as a separate part of the university in 1965, consisted of departments focused on the following thematic areas: history of philosophy; philosophy of the humanities; philosophy of the natural sciences; ethics; aesthetics; logic; psychology and pedagogy; history and theory of atheism; and scientific communism. At Moscow University and Leningrad University, the areas were approximately the same, while at other universities the number of departments was somewhat smaller, usually from three to five. Philosophy curricula throughout the Soviet Union grew at the expense of general cultural courses and included the following: dialectical materialism; historical materialism; history of foreign philosophy; history of philosophy of the Soviet peoples; history of Marxist-Leninist philosophy; modern bourgeois philosophy and ideology; aesthetics; ethics; history of religion and atheism; the world history module (from the history of the ancient world to contemporary history); the field of socio-economic disciplines (scientific communism, political economy of socialism and capitalism, history of CPSU); psychological and pedagogical sciences; and, finally, the division of natural and exact sciences (basics of modern mathematics, general and theoretical physics, and basics of biology). Such training was expected to provide Soviet “philosophy specialists” with a thorough materialist education integrated with the social and natural sciences. At the same time, general education in the humanities lagged far behind, owing to a lack of fundamental courses in the classical languages, history of art, etc. The worst situation was that of knowledge of languages, critical thinking, academic writing, public speaking, and theological studies. The general framework of the curriculum was set up to reproduce a materialist and Marxist historicist worldview among those receiving the Soviet philosophical education. The training of teachers of Marxism and other philosophical disciplines was put on a Ford-style assembly line after 1966, when

54

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

a compulsory course on “scientific communism” was introduced in all the USSR’s educational institutions. For this course, a specialist in philosophy had to be prepared not only to deliver the doctrine to vast audiences but also to skillfully answer questions from “immature” youth. A special difficulty arose when that youth wanted to discuss the difference between the principles proclaimed by the authorities and real everyday life in the USSR. The philosophical faculties issued so-called “methodological recommendations” that could help specialists find correct answers to problematic questions. These correct answers, in a way, demonstrate that the course and its methodology aimed at convincing audiences rather than developing their thinking abilities—a perverse strategy opposing and subverting the Socratic maieutic.18 Despite these conditions, the Soviet philosophical awakening continued in the above-mentioned philosophical directions. However, there were valuable additions. First of all, in the 1970s– 80s, Soviet philosophy and other intellectual and artistic practices were developing their own conceptualism and postmodernism (Epstein 2019: 13). Conceptualist and early postmodernist ironic optics focused on Soviet Marxist concepts—like collectivism, equality, and the people—and undermined their ideological meaning. The centers of this wave were visible in Moscow, Leningrad, Odessa, Lviv, and Novosibirsk, but these ideas also found wider audiences around the Soviet Union. This ironic trend in philosophical circles was merging with another tendency of this stage: cynicism. Whereas during the rule of Stalin-Jugashvili and Khrushchev, the ideological guidelines of Marxism-Leninism were largely unquestionable for those working in official philosophical institutions, in the 1970s to early 1980s intellectuals could reduce the introjection of the Marxist creed through cynical compartmentalization. In the introductory parts of their works, Soviet philosophers were to mention Marx, Engels, and Lenin, but they did so only as an empty ritual, a defensive gesture. Although Marxist language remained in texts, thinkers 18

A summary of such “wise advice” can be found in Tadevosyan et al. 1987. On transgressive Socratic cynicism, please see Močalova 2020.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

55

tried to maintain personal distance from the doctrine. This practice allowed the preservation of their inner freedom of contemplation, but at the price of the self-humiliating refusal to engage in public discussion or action.19 This cynicism, however, was an alternative to Orwellian doublethink: a cynical position provided some painful integrity to the late Soviet personality that was paradoxically genuine in official and intimate controversies.20 In terms of the Soviet philosophical condition, this cynicism was a result of acceptance of the chasm as an existential platform: it provided physical safety, a stable income, and the ability to philosophize—even if the results of this philosophizing were not for public use.21 Another strong trend was the nationalization of philosophical processes in all the Soviet republics, including Russia. Alongside the slow decline of Soviet Marxism as a philosophical position, some local patriotic and nationalist tendencies were growing in Moscow, Kyiv, Tbilisi, and elsewhere. In philosophy, this was reflected in the opening of departments for the study of the national philosophical heritage. For example, despite the stern control of the republican Central Committees over the non-proliferation of “bourgeois nationalism,” researchers were looking at Georgian religious teachings, the links between Islam and philosophy in Kazan, or the Mohylian philosophical heritage in Ukraine. This tendency started in the late 1960s, and in the 1970s it was always on the margins of the official philosophical surface, needing constant administrative defense from ideological censorship. For example, the Mohylian research was possible due to constant political cover by Pavel Kopnin, initially director of the Institute of Philosophy of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Kyiv) and later director of the Institute of Philosophy of the USSR Academy of Sciences (Moscow). Later, the ideological and methodological 19 20 21

For more on this late Soviet cynicism, see Yudin 1993 and Jermolenko 2003. For more on this non-binary Sovietness, please see Yurchak 2013: 12ff. It is worth mentioning that this cynicism was relatively non-productive: philosophical texts that were considered highly valid in the 1970s and 1980s are not in demand in today’s philosophical world—we have enough dogmatists and cynics of our own.

56

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

foundations of these pre-discursive nationalist conventions manifested in the second caesura and in the early 1990s, when nationalism—in its different forms—became the major source of legitimacy for the new truth regimes and social orders in independent Georgia, Russia, and Ukraine. The chiefs of the philosophical centers (heads of academic institutes and university faculties, ideological workers of the Central Committee, and their entourages) were able to create working conditions for a generation of philosophers who were born from the spirit of the Thaw and its associated philosophical awakening. This allowed Genrikh Batiščev (1932–1990), Vladimir Bibler (1918–2000), Evald Ilyenkov (1924–1979), Vadim Ivanov (1933–1991), Mikhail Lifšyc (1905–1983), Jurij Lotman (1922–1993), Merab Mamardašvili (1930–1990), Nelli Motrošilova (1934–2021), Svetlana Neretina (b. 1941), Mikhail Petrov (1923–1987), Myroslav Popovyč (1930–2018), Georgij Ščedrovickij (1929–1994), Alexander Zinoviev (1922–2006), and many others to work in a relatively comfortable environment.22 However, there were very specific parameters, including institutionalized censorship and ideological monopoly, waves of repression of dissidents, and pressures to move from philosophical centers into other, less ideologically important academic institutes. Yet there were also some limited possibilities for publications, seminars, and communication with foreign colleagues. As Motrošilova described it from her own experience, this was a philosophical situation based on an antinomy: there were censors and controllers from Stalin-era Marxist centers—but there were also “creative communities,” spaces of free philosophical creativity and communication, despite all disciplinary and political borders (Motrošilova 2013: 6, 14–15; Motrošilova & Tatarenko 2018: 343–45). The late Soviet post-totalitarian power and truth regime were still strong. Even in 1983, at the June plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, Stalinist solutions were offered in response to increasing social dissatisfaction with the standards of living: 22

On this cohort of philosophers, please see Kantor 2009; Motrošilova 2009; Tolstyh 2009; Lektorskij 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2014; Arslanov 2010; Popovyč 2010.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

57

The political vigilance of the Soviet people, their irreconcilability with hostile views, their ability to resist the ideological diversions of the class enemy… should be increased and strengthened… [to fight] the opportunistic raids on the real socialism. (Materialy 1983: 70–71)

Andropov’s attempted reforms and increased ideological censorship demonstrated that the authorities’ zeal to reinstate totalitarian rule and ideocracy lacked both human and institutional resources. Indeed, despite the control and ideological monopoly, the development of philosophical research in the areas of the history of philosophy and “critique of bourgeois doctrines” provided access to contemporary non-Marxist philosophical thought (Dewey, Husserl, Heidegger, Ricœur, Habermas, etc.). Official philosophical publications, including some in the languages of the national republics, were growing in numbers and spread ideas not limited to Marxism. Studies of Kant and Hegel—due to their role as predecessors of Marx—were recognized as having the right not only to exist but also to develop actively, creating late Soviet “Kantians” and “Hegelians.” All this served as a basis for the philosophical leap to the Perestroika stage of the Soviet philosophical condition. 2.5 Decline of ideological monopoly and fuller return of philosophical pluralism, 1986–91 By the early 1980s, the Soviet Union faced the existential problems generated not only by political, security, and economic situations but also by its very success in education. An inflexible ideological frame, cynical professors, and a huge educational and party bureaucracy simply could not react to the demands of social development and globalization. The watershed in Soviet domestic politics was the XXVII Congress of the CPSU (February 27–March 6, 1986), at which the need for urgent measures in the spheres of economic and social development was acknowledged. Furthermore, the success of the needed executive measures depended on deep economic and administrative reforms, democratization of the decision-making process, and liberties for those involved in the analysis and interpretation of the causes and

58

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

consequences of catastrophic socioeconomic processes. For that reason, one of the main decisions of the congress was articulated in a document called “The Main Trends of Perestroika of Higher and Secondary Education,” which demanded a “new quality” of personnel training for industry and administration to restore socioeconomic progress. This new education and training system had to maintain equilibrium between “ideological and political maturity” and professionalism (Sičkarenko 2013: 163). Gorbachev’s educational reforms coincided with those in Britain and Japan. In the 1980s, Britain and Japan also faced the issue of educational systems unable to meet the needs of the globalizing economy. However, their reforms were not targeting an educational system that had been tasked with social engineering. In the Soviet Union, the Perestroika reforms started with the idea that the “new Soviet man” had never been formed in the USSR, in spite of all the revolutionary victims and efforts of the previous fifty years. This meant the education system had to give up on social engineering and be reoriented from the quest for Soviet Man to the needs of the economy and effective management. Gorbachev’s reforms aimed at changing the ideological “cement” of the USSR’s political regime and social order. Quite predictably, the role of philosophical education in this context was seen as highly important. Characteristically, the Soviet mind assumed that the policy of glasnost had to be morally and ideologically grounded to be effective. Philosophy had to provide Soviet society with discursive conventions that would allow it to accept pluralism of opinion and the necessity of public discussion while limiting the negative results of public discord. The Soviet philosophical condition, however, had not prepared philosophers to act publicly, think critically, or to link contemplation, practice, and experience. In consequence, the party’s tasks were never implemented by philosophers, at least not in the ways party leaders wanted. Instead, Soviet philosophy was actively participating in, if not leading, the process of “de-platforming” the ideological monopoly and all the historical myths and identity posits of the Soviet lifeworld. The normative and rational force of philosophy, as well

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

59

as of many other intellectual practices, was applied to launching the process of critical review of what had been laid down in the foundations of the Soviet society and regime—the process that Anatolij Tykholaz called “unmasking” (Tykholaz 1998: 60). Many heretofore suppressed facts about the crimes of the Soviet authorities and many official myths about heretofore-worshiped idols and demonized opponents of Soviet power were quickly brought into the center of public attention. The Memorial movement, banned in Russia last year, stemmed from this process. Intellectuals focused on unmasking the past to such an extent that collective memory became the field of struggle, in which liberals from the Memorial movement fought with neoSovietist conservatives from the Pamiat’ (Memory) movement and with many nationalist intellectuals promoting an ethnonational revival of the past. Historical studies of the Soviet past by figures like Roy Medvedev or Alexander Solzhenitsin were at the center of public debate (Solzhenitsin 1989; Medvedev 2010). In addition, non-Marxist sociological studies of the late Soviet society commanded considerable interest (Žukov 2003: 15ff). Philosophy, however, did not assume the role of a Weberian science, which to rationalize the lifeworld had to focus on the present and the future. Official philosophers were ignored as they tried to use disrespected Marxist language or demonstrate their cynical approach. Unofficial, dissident philosophers quickly became engaged in the political struggles of liberals, social democrats, national patriots, etc., whose voices were too contradictory to be heard. With rare exceptions, as in the Mamardašvili case, philosophers could not offer a nonpartisan opinion—yet if they did, they were not listened to since the opinions they expressed were too unpopular and thus provocative. Soon before the caesura of 1989–91, philosophy relinquished its central position in the Soviet lifeworld to the historians, who soon came in addition to inspire legal studies, literary fiction, and aesthetic theory. One of the reasons that history—and historical fiction— became the leading intellectual practice was that Soviet philosophical institutes and faculties did not immediately accept

60

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Perestroika’s call for pluralism. The official surface was still influenced by ideological inertia, continued party control, and a sort of disciplinary snobbism that restrained philosophers from timely reaction to the public’s demands. Philosophers from other layers and centers were fast becoming involved in many new opportunities in journalism, politics, religion, and business (especially publishing). In 1988–91, tens of philosophical books by previously forbidden authors—just to name a few, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Carl Gustav Jung, and Pavel Florenskij—were re-published, and many new translations of core 20th-century philosophical works were undertaken. In 1989–91, the number of translations of philosophical, historical, and sociological works doubled annually (Khapaeva 2005: 10–11). At all levels, the Soviet philosophical condition was falling into ruin from blows struck by the philosophers themselves. Furthermore, philosophical education was dropping off in the structures of the Soviet condition. In Moscow, the democratization of philosophical education began around 1988. That year, the election of the dean of the philosophy faculty of Moscow State University drew considerable publicity when Professor Alexander Panin defeated the candidate promoted by the authorities. Panin immediately instituted reforms, bringing many new intellectuals onto the faculty in newly established departments and launching the project of a new philosophy textbook. For the centralized Soviet educational system, this new textbook offered the start of decommunization. A group of philosophers and sociologists headed by Professor Ivan Frolov developed a new Perestroika-style two-volume textbook (Frolov et al. 1989). The Introduction to Philosophy became an extremely popular product used by most humanities and social sciences centers in the Soviet educational system to displace the Marxist didactic texts. By the end of 1989, Perestroika’s influence had already spread to the philosophical centers in Almaty, Kyiv, Minsk, Tbilisi, and elsewhere. But everywhere—with the exception of the Baltic countries—philosophical institutions remained closely tied to the authorities and had a very narrow space for influencing the style and content of late Soviet politics.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

61

The pluralism of philosophical ideas and communication platforms led to the destruction of the Soviet philosophical condition. This pluralism provided philosophers with more opportunities to revise their own positions, study more widely, and take time for contemplation and practice. By the time of the second caesura, the chaos of intellectual and social processes was opening new horizons for the life of philosophy in new cultural and political conditions.

Conclusions The life of philosophy since the dissolution of the USSR has put an end to the alternative status of the Soviet philosophical condition. Its structures, limitations, and incentives have ceased to exist, and the philosophical processes in the societies of Eastern Europe and Northern Eurasia no longer constitute an alternative23 apart from other contemporary philosophies. Philosophers from these societies have adapted to the new conditions of theoretical work, including a great decrease in both authoritarian control and public interest, as well as the hegemony of philosophical ideas from outside the region. As I have argued, the Soviet philosophical condition was a product of the caesura of 1917–22, which moved philosophy from its place as one of many intellectual practices into the center of the struggle for the power and truth regime. This caesura constituted not only a rupture in cultural continuity but also an ontological event that critically changed the life of philosophy. Before the Soviet philosophical condition came to an end with the caesura of 1989–91, it developed in five different stages through which at least three generations of philosophers lived and worked. Arguably, their philosophical institutions, directions, and practices survived the changes of 1989–91 and may still be found, though on a different scale, in the contemporary intellectual landscape of Eastern Europe and Northern Eurasia.

23

This non-alternative status still means a long philosophical silence (or lack of new ideas) in the East.

62

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

My study is an attempt to reconsider Soviet philosophy as a condition and to offer a periodization of its development. A clear portrait of the evolving characteristics of this condition provides researchers on Soviet philosophical thought with an opportunity to better understand the logic of its development, its sociopolitical context, the motivations of individual philosophers, and the elements that may still be found in contemporary philosophical processes. The periodization offered is a result of looking at the development of Soviet philosophy in terms of a balance among political, wider intellectual, and narrower philosophical factors. In combination, these lenses may help better understand how philosophy can live within, be subordinate to, yet ultimately undermine the power regimes creating ontological obstacles to philosophical contemplation and practice.

Bibliography Agamben, G. (2004). The Open: Man and Animal. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Anders, J. (2020). Cultural Dissent in Soviet Belarus (1968–1988): Intelligentsia, Samizdat and Nonconformist Discourses, written by Tatsiana Astrouskaya. Journal of Belarusian Studies 10(1): 93–98. Arendt, H. (1986). Elemente und Ursprünge totaler Herrschaft. Antisemitismus, Imperialismus, Totalitarismus. München-Zürich: Piper. Arendt, H. (1989). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Arnason, J. P. (2000). Communism and modernity. Daedalus 129(1): 61–90. Aronova, E. (2011). The politics and contexts of Soviet science studies (Naukovedenie): Soviet philosophy of science at the crossroads. Studies in East European Thought 63(3): 175–202. Arslanov, V. G. (ed.) (2010). Mihail Aleksandrovich Lifšyc. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

Babak, G., Dmitriev, A. (2021). Atlantida sovetskogo nacmodernizma. Formal’nyj metod v Ukraine (1920-e — nachalo 1930-h). Moskva: NLO. Bachmetjevas, V. (2022). Philosophy in Lithuania after 1989. Ideology and Politics Journal 1(20): 292–307.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

63

Bakhurst, D. (1991). Consciousness and Revolution in Soviet Philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bakhurst, D. (2002). Social memory in Soviet thought. An introduction to Vygotsky. London: Routledge, 208–230. Bazhanov, V. (1999). Philosophy in Post-Soviet Russia (1992--1997). Studies in East European Thought 51(3): 219–241. Bibler, V. (2009). The foundations of the School of the Dialogue of Cultures Program. Journal of Russian & East European Psychology 47(1): 34–60. Biriukov, B. (2008). Trudnye vremena filosofii. Otechestvennaja logika, istorija i filosofija v poslednie stalinskie gody [from Rus.: Difficult times for philosophy. Our logic, history and philosophy in the last years of the Stalin rule]. Moskva: URSS. Blakeley, J. E. (2012). Soviet philosophy: a general introduction to contemporary Soviet thought. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media. Blakeley, T. J. (1961). Soviet scholasticism. Soviet Scholasticism. Dordrecht: Springer, 72–87. Blakeley, T. J. (1979). Orthodox philosophy of language in Russia. Studies in Soviet Thought 1979: 1–21. Bochenski, J. M. (1950). Der sowjetrussische Dialektische Materialismus. Bern: Francke. Bochenski, J. M. (1973). Marxismus-Leninismus. Wissenschaft oder Glaube? München: Olzog. Brubaker, R. (2011). Nationalizing states revisited: projects and processes of nationalization in post-Soviet states. Ethnic and racial studies 34(11): 1785–1814. Bungs, D. (1988). Joint political initiatives by Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians as reflected in samizdat materials—1969–1987. Journal of Baltic Studies 19(3): 267–271. Bystrytsky, Ye. (2003). Metafіzika pіzn’ogo radjans’kogo marksizmu: Vadim Іvanov [from Ukr.: Metaphysics of the late Soviet Marxism: Vadym Ivanov]. Fіlosofsko- antropologіchnі studіi 2003: 4–19. Collins, R. (2009). The sociology of philosophies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Dahm, H., Blakeley, T. J., & Kline, G. L. (eds.). (1988). Philosophical Sovietology: The Pursuit of a Science. Dordrecht and Boston: Reidel. De George, R. T. (1965). Heidegger and the Marxists. Studies in Soviet Thought 11: 289–298. Dmitriev, A. (2010). Mertvaja voda, sovetskie mysliteli i gamburgskij schet. Idei i idealy 2(4): 20–23.

64

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Donskis, L. (2002). On the boundary of two worlds: Lithuanian philosophy in the twentieth century. Studies in East European Thought 54(3): 179–206. Dragadze, T. (1978). A meeting of minds: a Soviet and Western dialogue. Current Anthropology 19(1): 119–128. Dubrovskij D. I. O moem filosofskom pokolenii «pjatidesjatnikov», filosofii i filosofah [from Rus.: On My Philosophical Generation of 1950s, Philosophy and Philosophers]. Fakty i razmyshlenija. In: Sineokaja, Ju. (red.) (2022). Filosofskie pokolenija. M.: Izdatel’skij Dom JaSK, 145–195. Duik, N., Karatnycky, A. (1990). The Hidden Nations. New York: Morrow. Dziuba, I. (1974). Internationalism or russification?: A study in the Soviet nationalities problem. Toronto: Monad Press. Epstein, M. (2019). The Phoenix of Philosophy: Russian Thought of the Late Soviet Period (1953–1991). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA. Fainsod, M. (1965). Khrushchev’s Russia. Problems of Communism 14: 4–23. Fitzpatrick, S. (2000). Ascribing Class: The Construction of Social Identity. Fitzpatrick, S. (ed.) Russia in Stalinism: New Directions. London: Routledge, 20–47. Fitzpatrick, S. (2007). Revisionism in Soviet history. History and Theory 46(4): 77–91. Fitzpatrick, S. (2018). The cultural front. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Florovskij, G. (1998). Iz proshlogo russkoj mysli [from Rus.: From the Past of Russian Thought]. Moscow: Agraf; 1998. Foucault, M. (2005). The order of things. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (2007). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Durham: Duke University Press, 2007. Frank, A. G. (1992). Nothing new in the east: no new world order. Social Justice 19(47): 34–61. Friedrich, C.J. (1957). Totalitare Diktatur (unter Mitarbeit von Professor Zbigniew K. Brzezinski). Stuttgart: VAU. Friedrich, C.J. (1964). Die Macht der Negation und das Verhangnis totaler Ideologie. Hodeige Ed. F., Rothe C. (eds.) Atlantische Begegnungen. Eine Freundesgabe fur Arnold Bergstraesser. Freiburg im Breisgau: UP, 9–23. Frolov, I., Arab-Ogly, Je., Aref’eva, G., Gajdenko, P., Kelle, V., Kozlova, M., & Stepanjanc, M. (1989). Vvedenie v filosofiju [from Rus.: Introduction into Philosophy]. Moskva: Progress. Gamsakhurdia, Z. (1976). Gamsakhurdia writes RCL. Religion in Communist Lands 4(4): 48–51.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

65

Glavackij, M. (2002). Filosofskij parohod: god 1922-yj [from Rus.: The Philosophial Steamship: 1922 year]. Ekaterinburg: Izdatel’stvo Ural’skogo universiteta. Gobar, A. (1978). Contemporary Philosophy in Soviet Georgia. Studies in Soviet Thought 12: 173–196. Godoń, R., Jucevičienė, P., & Kodelja, Z. (2004). Philosophy of education in post-Soviet societies of Eastern Europe: Poland, Lithuania and Slovenia. Comparative Education 40(4): 559–569. Gordeeva, I. (2020). Christian Samizdat on Religious Seeking of the Soviet Countercultural Youth in the 1970s to mid-1980s. In: Mikeshin, I. (ed.). Eight Essays on Russian Christianities. Saint Petersburg: Center for the History of Ideas, 79–107. Grier, P. T. (1978). Marxist Ethical Theory in the Soviet Union. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company. Grigorishin, S. (2022). Georgy Ščedrovicky’s philosophical quest and the Methodological school [from Rus.: Filosofskij poisk Georgiya Ščedrovickogo i metodologičeskaja škola]. Ideology and Politics Journal 1(20): 44–143. Guseinov, A. A., Lektorsky, V. A. (2009). Philosophy in Russia: History and present state. Diogenes 56(2–3): 3–23. Habermas, J. (1990). What does socialism mean today? The rectifying revolution and the need for new thinking on the left. New Left Review 183(1): 3–22. Habermas, J. (2015). A philosophy of dialogue. Mendes-Flohr, P. (ed.). Dialogue as a Trans-disciplinary Concept. Berlin: De Gruyter, 7–20. Habermas, J. (2018). The new conservatism: cultural criticism and the historian’s debate. London: John Wiley & Sons. Heidegger, M. (1989). Gesamtausgabe, Band 65: Beiträge zur Philosophie (Vom Ereignis). Frankfurt M.: V. Klostermann Verlag. Heidegger, M. (2002). Heidegger: Off the beaten track. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Heidegger, M. (2015). Sein und Zeit. Berlin: De Gruyter. Hoffmann, D. L. (2003). Stalinist values: the cultural norms of Soviet modernity, 1917–1941. Ithaka, Il: Cornell University Press. Hösle, V. (1992) The third world as a philosophical problem. Social research 22(2): 227–262. Istorija Vsesojuznoj kommunisticheskoj partii (bol’shevikov). Kratkij kurs pod red. Komissii CK VKP(b) [from Rus.: History of the All-Union Communist party of the Bolsheviks. A Short Course ed. by the Central Committee of the CPSU]. Moscow: Partizdat, 1938.

66

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Jahot, I. (1991). Podavlenie filosofii v SSSR (20-30-e gody) [from Rus.: The suppression of philosophy in USSR (1920s–30s)]. Voprosy filosofii 9: 44–68. Jaspers, K. (1962). The great philosophers. London: Polity. Jaspers, K. (2001 [1919]). Psychologie der weltanschauungen. Berlin: Springer. Jermolenko, A. (2003). Pіznіii marksyzm — fіlosofіia tsynіchnogo rozumu [from Ukr.: Late Marxism as a philosophy of the cynical reason]. Fіlosofsko- antropologіchnі studіi 2003: 340–361. Jeu, B., & Blakeley, T. (1982). Philosophy of the Caucasus and of Central Asia in the Soviet Period. Studies in Soviet Thought 13: 285–299. Johnston, H. (1993). Religio-nationalist subcultures under the communists: Comparisons from the Baltics, Transcaucasia and Ukraine. Sociology of Religion 54(3): 237–255. Kabelka, G. (2019). The Historiography of Philosophy in Lithuania during Soviet Period. Studies in the History of Philosophy 10(3): 39–58. Kantor, V.K. (ed.) (2009). Jurii Mihailovich Lotman. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Karpenko, A. (2014). Іstorіografіja postradjans’koї recepcії fіlosofuvannja Martіna Gajdeggera [from Ukr.: Historiography of the post-Soviet reception of Heidegger’s philosophy]. Gumanіtarnij zhurnal (3-4): 118–123. Kasianov, G. (2012). The “Nationalization” of History in Ukraine. Miller, A., & Lipman, M. (Eds.). The convolutions of historical politics. Budapest: Central European University Press, 141–174. Kavaliauskas, T. (2018). Being in countryside culture and art: the perspective of Lithuanian philosophy. Ukrainian cultural studies 1(2): 33–54. Kearney, R. (1984). Dialogues with Contemporary Continental Thinkers: The Phenomenological Heritage: Paul Ricœur, Emmanuel Levinas, Herbert Marcuse, Stanislas Breton, Jacques Derrida. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Khapaeva, D. (2005). Gercogi respubliki v jepohu perevodov [from Rus.: Dukes of the Republic in the Age of Translations]. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie. Kline, G. L. (1968). Religious and Anti-Religious Thought in Russia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Komaromi, A. (2012). Samizdat and Soviet dissident publics. Slavic Review 71(1): 70–90.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

67

Koriakin, V. (2019). Degradatsyia sovetskogo marksizma na primere filosofii i metodologii istorii vtoroi poloviny XX veka [from Rus.: Degradation of the Soviet Marxism: the case of philosophy and methodology of history in the second half of 20th century]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofija. Psikhologiia. Sociologiia 1: 12–23. Korsakov, S. N. Filosofy voennogo pokolenija [from Rus.: Philosophers of the War Generation]. In: Sineokaja, Ju. (red.) (2022). Filosofskie pokolenija. M.: Izdatel’skij Dom JaSK, 97–143. Kotkin, S. (1997). Magnetic Mountain: Stalinism as a Civilization. San Francisco: University of California Press. Kozlovs’kyj, V. (2009). Іmanuil Kant u «zalіznykh obіimakh» radianskoii fіlosofіi: dekіlka notatok do nashoi nedavnioi іntelektualnoi іstorіi [from Ukr.: Immanuel Kant in the iron embraces of the Soviet philosophy: several notes on our recent intellectual history]. Fіlosofska dumka 3: 117–126. Krēsliņš, U. (2020). Contacts and activities of the Latvia’s and Lithuania’s Roerich societies in the “Theosophical anti-Soviet underground” in the 1940s: based on the materials of Latvian SSR MGB case. Acta humanitarica universitatis Saulensis 27: 44–61. Kūle, M. (2022). Filosofija v Latvii za 40 let (1982–2022) [from Rus.: Philosophy in Latvia in recent 40 years]. Ideology and Politics Journal 1(20): 227–256. Kultaeva, M. (2008). K politicheskoii antropologii transformatsyonnykh protsessov posttotalitarnogo obshhestva [from Rus.: Towards the political anthropology of the post-totalitarian transformation]. Sovietskaya filosofiia: materialy konferentsii. Kiev: Naukova dumka, 26–32. Kurennoj, V. (2002). Filosofija i obrazovanie [from Rus.: Philosophy and education]. Otechestvennye zapiski 1: 3–24. Lektorskij, V. A. (ed.) (2009). Genrih Stepanovich Batiščev. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Lektorskij, V. A. (ed.) (2010a). Bonifatii Mihailovich Kedrov. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Lektorskij, V. A. (ed.) (2010b). Kak eto bylo: vospomynaniia i razmyshleniia [from Rus.: How was it? Memories and reflrctions]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Lektorskij, V. A. (ed.) (2014). Problemy i dyskussii v filosofii Rossii vtoroi poloviny 20 veka: sovremennyi vzgliad [from Rus.: Issues and discussions in the philosophy of Russia in the second half of 20th century: a contemporary view]. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

68

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Lektorskij, V., & Bykova, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Philosophical Thought in Russia in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century: A Contemporary View from Russia and Abroad. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Lipovetsky, M., Glanc, T., Engström, M., Kukuj, I., & Smola, K. (2021). Theoretical Problems of Soviet Underground Culture. In The Oxford Handbook of Soviet Underground Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 97–122.

Loj, A. (2003). Fіlosofіja ta svіtohljad u pіzn’omu marksyzmі. Fіlosofs’ko- antropologіčnі studії. Kyїv: IF NANU, 40–55. Losev, A. (1928). Dialektika chisla u Plotina [from Rus.: The Plotinus’ Dialectic of Number]. M.: Izd-e avtora. Loy, A. (2003). Fіlosofіia ta svіtogliad u pіznomu marksyzmі [from Ukr.: Philosophy and a worldview in the late Marxism]. Fіlosofskoantropologіchnі studіi 2003: 40–55. Lіsovyj, V. (2007). Ukraїns’ka fіlosofs’ka dumka 60–80-h rokіv [from Ukr.: Ukranian philosophy in 1960s–80s]. Fіlosofs’ka dumka 3: 64–80. Martin, Т. (2000). Modernization or Neo-Traditionalsim. Fitzpatrick Sh. (Еd.) Stalinism: New Directions. London & New York: Routledge, 234–45. Materіaly plenumu CK KPRS, 14–15 chervnja 1983 r. [from Ukr.: Materials of the CC CPSU Plenum, June 14–15, 1983]. Kyiv: Partvydav. Medvedev, R. (2010). Sovetskij Sojuz: poslednie gody zhizni [from Rus.: Soviet Union: Last years of its Life]. Moskva: AST. Melnykova, O. (2018). Samizdat magazine “Porogy”: typological peculiarities, problems, genres. Communications and Communicative Technologies 18: 62–67. Menzel, B. (2013). The Occult Underground of Late Soviet Russia. Aries 13(2): 269–288. Menzhulin, V. (2011). Filosofska osvita v umovakh rynkovoi ekonimky [from Ukr.: Philosophy education in the frameworks of market economy]. Tkachuk, M. et al. (2011). Filosofska osvita v Ukraini [from Ukr.: Philosophical education in Ukraine]. Kyiv: Agrar Media Group, 289-303. Menzhulin, V. (2022). Tematyčnі pol’a і metodologіčnі koordynaty sučasnyh ukraїns’kyh іstoryko-fіlosofs’kyh doslіdžen’ [from Ukr.: The thematic fields and methodological coordinates of the contemporary research in history of philosophy in Ukraine]. Ideology and Politics Journal 1(20): 259–291. Minakov, M. (2009). Nevlovyma vplyvovіst totalіtaryzmu: radianska fіlosofіia і suchasnyi іntelektualnyi landshaft [from Ukr.: The subtle influence of the totalitarianism: Soviet philosophy and contemporary intellectual landscape]. Ukraїna moderna 3: 207–227.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

69

Minakov, M. (2009b). Tenebrae seu lux-ex oriente? Pereocinka radyans’koi filosofiji v sučasnij anglo-amerikans’kij istoriografii [from Ukr.: Reevaluation of the Soviet philosophy in contemporary AngloAmerican historiography]. Filosofs’ka dumka 3: 103–116. Minakov, M. (2011). Transformatsia filosofskoi osvity d Ukraini u 19861995 [from Ukr.: Transformation of the philosophical education in Ukraine in 1986-95]. Tkachuk, M. et al. (2011). Filosofska osvita v Ukraini [from Ukr.: Philosophical education in Ukraine]. Kyiv: Agrar Media Group, 192–229. Minakov, M. (2019). Post-soviet Eastern Europe. Achievements in postsoviet development in six Eastern European nations. Ideology and Politics Journal 3(14): 171–193. Minakov, M. (2020). Dyalektyka sovremennosty v Vostochnoj Evrope [from Rus.: The Dialectics of Modernity in the Eastern Europe]. Kiev: Laurus. Minakov, M. (2021). Vsemirno-grazhdanskoe znachenie belarusskogo protesta–2020 i postsovetskih protestnyh dvizhenij [from Rus.: The universal meaning of the Belarussian Protest 2020 and of the postSoviet mass movements]. Topos 2: 45–74. Minakov, М. (2009a). Nevlovyma vplyvovist’ totalitaryzmu: radians’ka filosofija і sučasnyj intelektualnyj landšaft [from Ukr.: The subtle influence of totalitarianism: Soviet philosophy and contemporary intellectual landscape]. Ukraina moderna 3: 207–227. Mitin, M. (1936). Bojevyje voprosy materialisticheskoj dialektiki [The Combatant Issues of the Materialist Dialectic]. Moscow: Učpedgiz. Mitin, M., Ral’cevič, V., Judin, P. (1930). O novyh zadachah marksistskoleninskoj filosofii [from Rus.: On the New Tasks of the MarxistLeninist Philosophy]. Pravda, June 7, 1. Močalova, I. (2020). Filosofija Sokrata: formirovanie i transformacija sovetskogo kanona [from Rus.: The Philosophy of Socrates: Formation and Transformation of the Soviet Canon]. Platonovskie issledovanija 12(1): 141–158. Motrošilova, N. (2013). Otechestvennaja filosofija 50–80-h godov XX v. i zapadnaja mysl’ [from Rus: Russian philosophy of 1950–80s and Western thought]. M.: Akademicheskij Proekt. Motrošilova, N., Tatarenko, N. (2018). Antinomii v razvitii filosofii sovetskogo perioda. Interv’ju s N. V. Motroshilovoj [from Rus.: The antinomies in the development of Russian philosophy of the Soviet period]. Istoriko-filosofskij ezhegodnik 33: 337–359. Motrošilova, N.V. (ed.) (2009). Merab Konstantinovich Mamardašvili. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

70

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Munteanu, V. (1996). Thought, language, and the unthought: transiency, caesura, and finitude in Foucault, Heidegger, and Kant. Binghamton: State University of New York. Nancy, J. L. (2000). Being Singular Plural. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Nemtsev, M. (2010). Filosofija v SSSR kak predmet i tema istorii filosofii. Idei i idealy 2(4): 2–18. Ogurcov, A. (1989). Surovaja drama naroda. Moskva: Nauka. Oittinen, V. (2021). Ontologism in Soviet Philosophy: Remarks. Studies in East European Thought 73(2): 205–217.

Some

Orlov, V. (1996). Sovremennaja forma nauchnoj filosofii [from Rus.: The contemporary form of the scientific philosophy]. Novyie idei v filosofii 4: 4–6. Osharov, M. (1973). To Alien Shores: The 1922 Expulsion of Intellectuals from the Soviet Union. The Russian Review 32(3): 294–298. Oushakine, S. (2000). In the state of post-Soviet aphasia: Symbolic development in contemporary Russia. Europe-Asia Studies 52(6): 991–1016. Parming, T. (1977). Roots of nationality differences. In: Allworth, E. (ed.). National Group Survival in Multi-Ethnic States. New York: Praeger, 24–57. Pavlyshyn, M. (2010). Defending the Cultural Nation before and after 1991: Ivan Dziuba. Canadian-American Slavic Studies 44(1-2): 25–43. Plotnikov, N. (2001). Sovetskaja filosofija: institut i funkcija [from Rus.: Soviet philosophy: institute and function]. Logos 4(30): 99–116. Popovyč, M. V. (ed.) (2010). Pavel Vasil’evich Kopnin. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Porus, V. (2006). Fenomen “sovetskoj filosofii” [from Rus.: The phenomenon of “Soviet philosophy”]. Vysshee obrazovanie v Rossii 11: 154–166. Proleev, S. (2003). Dumka і strakh: radianska fіlosofіia iak sytuatsіia myslennia [from Ukr.: Thought and fear: Soviet philosophy as a thought-situation]. Fіlosofsko- antropologіchnі studіi 2003: 12–130. Scanlan, J. P. (1985). Marxism in the USSR: A Critical Survey of Current Soviet Thought. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Scanlan, J. P. (1987). Editor’s Introduction. Soviet Studies in Philosophy 26(1): 3–6. Senyk, S. (2002). The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church today: universal values versus nationalist doctrines. Religion, State & Society 30(4): 317–332. Sharpe, M. (2020). In the crosshairs of the fourfold: Critical thoughts on Aleksandr Dugin’s Heidegger. Critical Horizons 21(2): 167–187.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

71

Shlapentokh, V. (1990). The justification of political conformism: The mythology of Soviet intellectuals. Studies in Soviet Thought 39(2): 111–135. Sičkarenko, G. (2013). Programma perestrojki vysshego obrazovanija v SSSR i Ukraine [from Rus.: The Program of Reform of the Higher Education in the USSR and Ukriane]. Al’manah sovremennoj nauki i obrazovanija 8: 162–165. Siddiqi, A. (2016). Tsiolkovskii and the Invention of ‘Russian Cosmism’: Science, Mysticism, and the Conquest of Nature at the Birth of Soviet Space Exploration. In Betts, P., & Smith, S. (eds.). Science, Religion and Communism in Cold War Europe. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 127–156 Sineokaja, Ju. (red.) (2022). Filosofskie pokolenija [from Rus.: Philosophical Generations]. M.: Izdatel’skij Dom JaSK. Soboleva, M. (2016). Bakhtin’s Influence on the Late-Soviet Philosophy. The Dostoevsky Journal 17(1): 106–119. Sokolov, E. (2017). Filosofija peredovic. Merab Mamardašvili kak sovetskij filosof [from Rus.: Philosphy of the columns. Merab Mamardašvili as a Soviet pilosopher]. Logos 27(6): 121–34. Solzhenitsin, A. I. (1989). Zhit’ ne po lzhi! [from Rus.: To Live Honestly]. Vek ХХ i mir 2: 1–23. Stalin, J. (2008[1950]). Marxism and problems of linguistics. New York: Wildside Press LLC. Surovaja drama naroda. (1989). Surovaja drama naroda: Uchenye i publicisty o prirode stalinizma [from Rus.: The drama of the people: Scholars and journalists on the nature of Stalinism]. Moscow: Politizdat. Sverdiolas, A. & Kačerauskas, T. (2009). Phenomenology in Lithuania. Studies in Eastern European Thought 61: 31–41. Sydykov, Y. B., Nysanbaev, A. N., & Tuleshov, V. T. (2016). On the Origins, Stages and Prospects of the Kazakh Philosophy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11: 4054–4064. Sydykov, Y. B., Nysanbaev, A. N., & Tuleshov, V. T. (2016). On the Origins, Stages and Prospects of the Kazakh Philosophy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11: 4054–4064. Tabačkovsky, V. (2002). U pošukakh nevtračenogo času: Narysy pro tvorču spadščynu ukrainskykh filosofiv-šistdesiatnykiv [from Ukr.: In the quest for non-lost time: Note on theoretical legacy of the philosophers of the 1960ies]. Kyiv: Parapan. Tadevosjan E., Mnacakasjan M., Žyroms’ka І., Kravčenko S. (1987). Problemno-metodichnі posіbniki na dopomogu vikladacham naukovogo komunіzmu [from Ukr.: Problem-Methodological Manuals to Help Teachers of Scientific Communism]. Fіlosofs’ka dumka 6: 110–112.

72

MIKHAIL MINAKOV

Taho-Godi, A. A., Taho-Godi, E. A. (ed.) (2009). Aleksej Fedorovič Losev. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Terbish, B. (2020). Russian Cosmism: Alien visitations and cosmic energies in contemporary Russia. Modern Asian Studies 54(3): 759–794. Tevzadze, G. (2010). Filosofiia v suchasnii Hruzii [from Ukr.: Philosophy in contemporary Georgia]. Filosofska dumka 4: 14–26. Tkačuk, M. (2016). Instytut filosofii v intelektualnii biografii Vilena Gorskogo [from Ukr.: Institute of philosophy in the intellectual biography of Vilen Gorsky]. Filosofska dumka 6: 113–121. Tkačuk, M. et al. (2011). Filosofska osvita v Ukraini [from Ukr.: Philosophical education in Ukraine]. Kyiv: Agrar Media Group. Tolstyh, V.Y. (ed.) (2009). Eval’d Vasil’evič Il’enkov. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Turenko, V. (2019). View on Human in the Ukrainian Philosophical Studies in the Interwar Period: from Past to Future. Future Human Image 12: 115–120. Tykholaz, A. (1998). Radjans’ka ta postradjans’ka mіfologіja u svіtlі fіlosofії mіfologії [from Ukr.: The Soviet and post-Soviet Mythology reviewed through the Lens of Philosophy of Mythology]. Duh і lіtera 3–4: 58–67. Ulam, A. (1963). The Historical Role of Marxism and the Soviet System. Ulam, A. The New Face of Soviet Totalitarianism. Cambridge: HUP, 11–34. Vaitiekunas, V. (1965). Sovietized education in occupied Lithuania. In: Vardys, S. (ed.). Lithuania under the Soviets. New York: Praeger, 171–96. Valevsky O. (1992). Dіamat jak javishhe fіlosofskoii kultury [from Ukr.: Dialectical materialism as a philosophical phenomenon]. Fіlosofska і socіologіchna dumka 3: 40–51. Van der Zweerde, E. (1998). Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: IstorikoFilosofskaja Nauka. Dordrecht: Kluwer. Vardys, V. (1982). The nature and philosophy of Baltic dissent: A comparative perspective. Nationalities Papers 10(2): 121–136. Vdovychenko, H. (2020). Personal Dimensions of the Kyiv Philosophical School and its Images through the Voices of Memory. Future Human Image 14: 90–101. Waldstein, M. (2008). The Soviet empire of signs: a history of the Tartu school of semiotics. VDM Verlag Dr. Muller. Wetter, G. A. (1958). Dialectical Materialism a Historical and Systematic Survey of Philosophy in the Soviet Union. Bern: Francke. Wolfe, B. (1969). Marxism and the Russian Revolution. An Ideology in Power. Reflections on the Russian Revolution. New York: CUP, 35–45.

THE SOVIET PHILOSOPHICAL CONDITION

73

Yudin, B. (1993). Istorija sovetskoĭ nauki kak process vtorichnoĭ institucionalizacii [from Rus.: History of Soviet science as a process of the secondary institutionalization]. Filosofskie issledovaniia 3: 98–112. Yurchak, A. (2013). Everything was forever, until it was no more. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Yurynets, Ya. (2007). Bilja vytokiv «radians’koii filosofii» v Ukraini (1920– 1930-ti rr.) [from Ukr.: On the sources of “Soviet philosophy” in Ukraine (1920–1930ies)]. Naukovi Zapysky 63: 74–78. Zakaradze, L. (2014). Merab Mamardašvili vs the Soviet Mentality. European Scientific Journal 2: 76–81. Zisserman-Brodsky, D. (2003). Samizdat and Ethnic Mobilization. In: Constructing Ethnopolitics in the Soviet Union: Samizdat, Deprivation, and the Rise of Ethnic Nationalism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 185–193. Žuchkova, V. A., Blauberg, Y. Y. (eds.) (2010). Valentin Ferdinandovich Asmus. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Žukov, V. (2003). Rossijskie preobrazovanija: sociologija, ekonomika, politika [from Rus.: Russian transformations: sociology, economics, politics]. Moskva: Institut social’no-politicheskih issledovanij.

2

Belarus

Philosophy as a Realistic Utopia A Personal View on the Emancipation of Philosophy in Post-Soviet Belarus Tatiana Shchyttsova Philosophy has begun; it does not exist within all historic configurations; its way of being is discontinuity in time as in space. It must thus be presupposed that it requires particular conditions. Аlain Badiou

A Reverse Perspective My text is based on more than thirty years of personal engagement with the history of philosophical discourse in Belarus and presents an attempt to relate to this experience. Therefore, it is very important to outline from the very beginning the approach that I will use in this chapter. I will proceed from a rather radical assertion that the events of 2020–2021 in Belarus made possible the emergence and development of philosophy in the country. This statement presupposes, of course, a definite understanding of philosophy, which is not limited to the presence in the country of both institutions for the (re)production of philosophical knowledge and of corresponding researchers and teachers in various fields of philosophy. There were such institutions and personnel (the latter even in abundance), but there was no full-fledged philosophy. Saying this, I mean philosophy as a peculiar practice of free thinking that participates in the comprehension, articulation, and design of the character of social development. The peculiarity of philosophy is in the way it performs these intellectual operations: philosophy comprehends conceptually, articulates discursively, and designs rationally.

75

76

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

I should also emphasize that this definition relates not just to social dynamics: anything can affect social dynamics—a glass of beer drunk or the flight of a butterfly. I talk here about development, that is, changes that are perceived as promising due to their association both with liberation from various forms of social repression and with an increase in the level of meaningfulness. Here, my goal is not to search for a scientific definition of philosophy, but to establish its genuine connection with the reality of human social life, clarifying the very nature of this connection: how, in what historical configuration, and “for what purpose” does philosophy appear: “Wozu noch Philosophie?” In more mundane language, I talk here about the socio-historical positioning of philosophy—and argue that it is by dint of this very link that philosophy becomes full-fledged, thus realizing its vocation: its “social function” (Horkheimer) or its “being-historical” mission (Heidegger). Thus, subsequent reflections are based on two theses: 1) Until 2020, philosophy in Belarus remained an unrealized opportunity—in the sense that it did not have the kind of link with social reality that would allow us to talk about its being full-fledged or authentic. 2) The events of 2020–2021 provided the conditions that opened up the possibility for the emergence of a fullfledged philosophy that acquires and reveals its authenticity through a genuine connection with the current socio-historical agenda. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the acknowledgment of the state of affairs recorded in the first thesis was due to the heuristic effect of the revolutionary events mentioned in the second thesis. That is, the socio-political processes of the 2020–2021 crisis formed a system of coordinates containing an implicit request for a fundamentally new positioning of a philosophy for and of Belarusian society—in other words, a different philosophy. Together with the revolutionary shifts of 2020 (Shchyttsova 2021), a new historical scale was set for understanding the philosophy. Philosophy has revealed itself as a specific

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

77

intellectual potential arising from the new revolutionary situation. Such a revelation was determined by the shocks that combined collective existential numbness and uplift, depression and enthusiasm, a frozen time of inaction and a kairotic moment of social explosion. What appeared was the opportunity of a new, genuine, philosophy as an intellectual effort, the request for which was born within the historical singularity of this turbulent crisis. From the point of view of this new ideal opportunity the former state of philosophy can be interpreted as its failure: philosophy was there but never was genuinely realized (byla, no ne sbyvalas’). Accordingly, this essay proposes a kind of “reverse perspective” to assess the various ways and means by which philosophical thought was emancipated in Belarus after the collapse of the USSR. The foregoing means it is impossible to consider the previous stages in the recent history of philosophical thought in Belarus teleologically, that is, to present them as aspirations that somehow led to a well-known goal: the formation of a full-fledged philosophy. On the contrary, the specificity of the kairotic moment, its status as an event, lies in the fact that it establishes a caesura in socio-historical time, and a radically new horizon for social imagination opens up in this gap. Thus, a new coordinate system, a new scale for understanding past experience is introduced. It is distinguished by an intuitive understanding of the possibility of a new genuine philosophy and the singular historical demand for it. Such understanding arises as “inner experience”, from the point of view of which one can rethink a previously traveled path and reflect critically on old ways of (re)producing philosophical or “near-philosophical” discourse. The emergence of a new starting point means that from that point on, we can divide the history of intellectual life in Belarus into “before and after” the events of 2020, just as earlier, the understanding of all social processes was based on the historical divide “before and after the collapse of the USSR”. For philosophy, this watershed marked the symbolic beginning of the emancipation of thinking from the shackles of Soviet ideology. With the advent of a new “turning point”, a perspective opens up that allows us to re-evaluate this period of emancipation itself. Critical assessment of

78

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

this period in terms of the lack of being full-fledged and authentic should not be understood as its deprecation. Criticism is understood here not in a linearly negative way, in the sense of negation (“criticize severely”); instead, it seeks to establish and clarify an epoch-making delimitation in the positioning of philosophy in society “before and after”, as a historical opportunity opened up for socio-historically engaged philosophy to become full-fledged. Drawing from Patočka and Badiou (as well as Bakhtin and Heidegger), this attainment of a full-fledged state can be defined as the attainment by philosophy of a historical existence, of historicity. “Historical,” “historicity” and, accordingly, “history” sound with emphasis here, as they are understood as an event. For philosophy, attaining a full-fledged state implies that the “work of history” (which unfolds chronotopically) becomes a significant operating factor. If such engagement does not occur, if there is no evental linkage of philosophical thought with the socio-historical facticity, then philosophy is, in a certain sense, running for nothing (even if many various philosophical “products” are being produced). To move on, it is necessary to first clarify what is meant by the kind of linkage of thoughts and events that allows thinking to be full-fledged. Here, in the socio-historical context of the double “before and after,” I understand this linkage as a structural complementarity of a philosophical stance and the public demand for a free rational substantiation of the principles and goals of living together. It implies that philosophical thinking—a specific relationship between operations of conceptual comprehension, discursive articulation and rational design of the structure of social life—must be performed in an evental-historical connection with politics (which is a practical achievement of common goals). Accordingly, the autonomy of philosophical reflection should be supplemented by the potential of community autonomy; philosophy should be an intellectual reagent for changes in the public consciousness. Philosophy as a performer and facilitator of intellectual work on “criticism of the current state of affairs” (Horkheimer) and the community as a political subject oriented towards the ideal of autonomy (Castoriadis, Fours) must form a

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

79

constant critical reference point for each other while never coinciding and yet never losing their evental-historical conjunction. For philosophy, to be full-fledged means to be in an inextricable evental-historical relationship with the relevant community (people, civil society). Their structural cohesion constitutes the historical facticity of thinking and allows it to be commensurate with the epoch. Here, it should be emphasized that philosophy cannot become commensurate with the epoch from itself, by itself. The practice of philosophy is experienced as historical, as an event, insofar as the very establishment of its linkage with reality has an evental character, namely, it occurs as a result of some kind of shock, crisis or revolution. In this vein, Patočka thought of establishing the initial connection between history, philosophy, and politics, and Badiou insisted on the possibility of a “great philosophy” to raise the question of the universal as a question related to a singular historical event. In this vein, the understanding of the possibility to position philosophy anew was opened from the viewpoint of the major Belarusian events of 2020–2021. The principle of “reverse perspective” also works here: the choice of the authors and concepts to mention above as consonant landmarks and relevant concepts to grasp was based on my individual experience of and my involvement in the social upheavals and revolutionary shifts in Belarusian society. That is, the very “fore-conception” (Vorgriff) that Heidegger wrote about and that is a constitutive element of “living historicity” can be seen at work here. Starting from the above two basic theses of this essay, I can now define more precisely the two tasks that will be the subject of my further reasoning. In essence, the point is to fill the stated theses with concrete content. It is necessary, firstly, to clarify what exactly—which stances, methods of operation, etc.—manifested the non-full-fledged state of philosophy in the period “until 2020”, and why? And secondly, it is necessary to comprehend the new configuration of conditions that developed in the wake of the revolutionary and crisis events in Belarus and has opened a unique opportunity for a new historical positioning of philosophy. I will try to show that both “before” and “after”, a full-fledged

80

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

philosophy constituted/constitutes a utopian horizon for intellectuals who call themselves philosophers. At both stages, we are talking about a realistic utopia, however, the definitions of the term differ for each of the stages.

Realistic Utopia “Before” I entered the Department of Philosophy of the Faculty of Philosophy and Economics of the Belarusian State University (BSU) in 1987. Accordingly, all my studies took place under the sign of intellectual emancipation that unfolded in the wake of Perestroika. In my first year, I still had to diligently study the history of the CPSU, but in my fifth year, I wrote a diploma, “The concept of play in the philosophical hermeneutics of H.-G. Gadamer,” in which it was no longer necessary—even ritually and symbolically—to quote the classics of Marxism-Leninism and fit into the epoch-making discourse of “criticism of modern bourgeois philosophy”. It is not that the humanities faculties at BSU had rapidly become progressive, but the level of a significant part of professors in the philosophy department allowed me to graduate from the university with the understanding that I would like philosophy to become my profession. My newly graduated philosopher’s intellectual inquiry and horizon of imagination were determined primarily by the content of the education I received. I was lucky with my date of birth: the subjectification (Foucault) that had happened to me within the framework of higher education did not produce a heavy indoctrination by Soviet ideology. I belonged to the borderline generation, which, on the one hand, had a certain experience of passing through Soviet institutions (school, pioneer organization, Komsomol, university, trade union, etc.), but on the other hand, was, at the same time, intellectually open to the exploration of a new post-Soviet world. From the perspective of the sociology of knowledge, this meant that I received a relatively good systematic philosophical education, from which the ideological core was excised. We were no longer prepared to be ideologues. I entered the university as a citizen of the USSR, and graduated from it already

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

81

in independent Belarus. The education I received helped me form a clear understanding and conviction that philosophy should not be a “servant of ideology.” After the graduation, it was intuitively clear that the de-ideologization of philosophy (as a task facing the new era) was part of the liberalization of public life that began with Perestroika. However, along with the excision of the ideological core, which, in fact, ensured (albeit in a vicious way) the connection of philosophy with reality in the USSR, a void was formed in this assumed “place” of linkage to reality. What community (class? civil society? nation?) on the one hand, could or should it link to, and why could or should anyone have been interested in new specialists in the field of philosophy as a practice of free critical thinking? On the other hand, to what extent (if at all) did philosophical education itself orient students towards (or contain some implications regarding orientation towards) a new positioning of philosophy in the context of the post-Soviet transformations that had just begun to take place? Since we are talking about the Belarusian State University, the philosophical education offered by it theoretically— in accordance with the classical image of the university—should have been combined with the idea of a nation and should have positioned philosophy as an element of national self-consciousness. However, in Belarus, due to a number of historical and sociopolitical reasons, national self-determination was more of a problem than a basis for carrying out the necessary social transformations (unlike, for example, in Lithuania). The nationaldemocratic movement—Belarusian Popular Front “Revival” ("Adradžeńnie") — arose back in the period of Perestroika and initially gathered mass rallies and marches, but already in the first half of the 1990s, with the Front’s transformation into the Belarusian Popular Front Party, it began to rapidly lose popularity. When the first presidential elections were held in Belarus in 1994, the leader of the Belarusian Popular Front, Zianon Pozniak, who was one of the contenders for this post, did not make it to the second round.1 1

In the first presidential election in the Republic of Belarus, 6 candidates participated: Chairman of the Union of Agrarians and Hero of Socialist Labor

82

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

I am trying to combine elements of autoethnography and the biographical method in order to comprehend the logic of the development of philosophical discourse in Belarus after the collapse of the USSR. As emphasized in the title of this chapter, I am not aiming at an objective and complete analysis; simply offering a personal view. I am primarily interested in the intellectual efforts that quite consciously sought emancipation from the Soviet paradigm: since the ideology “by Lukashenka” did not allow this, state academic institutions systematically hindered such emancipation, although, of course, this in no way denies the professionalism of individual academics. In addition, from my particular perspective, post-Soviet emancipative philosophical discourse in Belarus was not homogeneous: one part had what can be called a centrifugal outlook, focused on the study of the European tradition, while another was centripetal, focused on the articulation of national consciousness. This oppositional alignment of forces is not at all accidental and directly relates to the key issue of this essay—the conditions for the (im)possibility of philosophy‘s being full-fledged in Belarus. Looking ahead, it is worth mentioning that the emergence of opposition between these trends in the Belarusian intellectual field was itself a symptom of the historical failure of philosophy in the given period. During our studies at the Belarusian State University, we did not have a single Belarusian-speaking lecturer. It was a completely typical situation for the academic sphere, which generally reflected the situation in the country. My social environment was also exclusively Russian-speaking. After graduating from university in 1992, I was well versed in the history of European philosophical thought, and my scientific interests were connected with such areas in Western thought as existential philosophy, phenomenology and Alexander Dubko, current Prime Minister of Belarus Vyacheslav Kebich, people's deputy and director of the Gorodets state farm of the Shklovsky district Alexander Lukashenka, secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus Vasily Novikov, leader of the Belarusian Popular Front "Adrajenne" Zianon Pozniak and former chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus Stanislav Shushkevich. In the first round, the top three scored: Alexander Lukashenka - 44.82%, Vyacheslav Kebich - 17.33%, Zenon Poznyak - 12.82%. Alexander Lukashenka won in the second round with a score of 80.34%.

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

83

hermeneutics. On the one hand, the choice of this configuration, which determined my academic career for many years, was completely free and corresponded to some of my inclinations and preferences; on the other hand, it was influenced by specific professors, primarily Anatolij Arsenjevič Mikhailov, who in 1992 became one of the founders of the European Humanities University. It should also be recalled that existentialist thought, with its focus on individual freedom gained particular popularity in the context of the general liberalization trend set by Perestroika. In addition, the intellectual liberalization of the late 1980s–early 1990s included another important element that determined the ideological horizon of many Belarusian philosophers: the publication of a previously forbidden philosophical heritage of works by Russian thinkers of the late 19th–early 20th centuries.2 Let us now connect this conditional intellectual portrait of the post-Soviet philosopher-beginner to its social context. In the 1990s, while issues of economic survival were at the forefront of most people’s minds in that part of the world, political and expert elites were in search of new principles they could base managerial decisions on and new institutional models they could use to stabilize situations in their respective post-Soviet countries. Obviously, under such conditions, any form of abstract intellectual academic philosophy concerned with non-utilitarian knowledge was most likely to have been perceived as having value only by academicians themselves. Graduated philosophers (and humanities scholars in solidarity with them) saw the value of cultivating of the very ethos and practice of philosophy as a way of directly experiencing freedom. The possibility of reading and discussing philosophical literature freely was lived as an actual vivid experience of participation in an intelligible world that opened up wide intellectual vistas on the other side of the rapidly crumbling framework and guidelines of communist ideology. This intelligible world took on a density—a social embodiment—in the

2

The most significant texts in this regard were published around that time in the book series Philosophical heritage (Filosofskoje nasledije), as well as in Our Heritage journal.

84

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

form of specific communities of “wisdom lovers”. That is, the deideologization of philosophy was understood primarily as an opportunity for philosophy to “return to itself” in the sense that philosophy could again manifest itself as “love for wisdom” and not in service of the Communist Party and the state it built. Thus, the effect of the primary emancipation of thinking was the immanentism of philosophical communities, which henceforth cultivated “pure philosophy”, philosophy for the sake of philosophy, philosophia perennis. Today, of course, I reflect on these characteristics of “genuine” philosophy somewhat ironically, but they also capture something which is not overshadowed by my irony—that is, the naive (as it became clear later) fascination with philosophical texts and reasoning as if they were self-sufficient and had their own, authentic, heuristic value. This passion proceeded along two channels: engagement in para-philosophical sophistication and engagement with the academic history of philosophy. One’s ability to stay within the second was again determined by the education one received. In this regard, I was lucky to move towards philosophy as a realistic utopia through years of studying the history of philosophy, as well as teaching various aspects and fragments of the history of European philosophy (from Parmenides to Foucault). For a long time, for many (including myself), the disciplinary framework of the history of philosophy was the only option of relating to philosophical issues as a professional academic. However, the disciplinary framework of engaging in the history of philosophy itself still needs to be contextualized within the specific context of the larger-scale “challenges of the time”. By the time our local academic community faced the need to rehabilitate philosophy after a long era of its ideological distortion, discussions at a global level were primarily aimed at problematizing the institutional status and epistemological identity of philosophy as a scientific enterprise. Philosophy turned out to be at risk and attacked both “from the outside”—by the cultural logic of late capitalist societies, and from within—by the philosophers and other intellectuals who subjected the European philosophical tradition to postmodernist

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

85

deconstruction. I wrote about this new constellation of the “crisis of philosophy” in more detail in the article, “The Negative Dialectic of Liberation. Philosophy after 1991” (Shchyttsova 2014). The institutional status of philosophy in the Western academy was problematized in the context of a radical transformation of the idea of university and a general crisis in the humanities. These processes were caused by the neoliberal economization of academic sphere. A sign of the times in this regard is Bill Readings’ book A University in Ruins (1997). Simultaneously with the new socio-economic questioning of the “benefit of philosophy for life”, the classical universal claims of philosophy in the sphere of knowledge production were questioned no less radically. Lyotard’s statement about the “end of grand narratives” was primarily a swipe at the philosophical canon of modernity: from Kant and Hegel to Gadamer and Habermas. Thus, “the global context sounded like a counterpoint to the current needs of post-Soviet academic philosophy” (Shchyttsova 2014: 197). Philosophy was problematized from a global perspective at the very time when, at the local level, it had to be restored to its epistemological identity and regain its institutional autonomy and local relevance. The local demand for the recreation of authentic philosophical knowledge was formed in a very specific constellation of conditions. First, we were affected by the Western trend of overcoming the academy by neoliberal management. Second, modern philosophical thought was revealed to us young postSoviet philosophers in the form of a sophisticating postmodernist discourse that tempted us to deconstruct a tradition that we were not a part of (after all, we “people from the East” studied that tradition as a “Western” one) and which we had not seriously mastered, unlike the masters of the postmodern criticism of metaphysics. Third, modern Belarusian society, after a short glimpse of the kind of socio-political life that raised a restrained hope of liberalization and democratic reform (1990–1994), began to sink deeper and deeper into a state of “regressive sociality”:3 a

3

A term introduced by Vladimir Fours (2005).

86

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

structural symbiosis of authoritarian rule4 and civic passivity, organically formed on the basis of popular nostalgia for the lost prosperity and stability of the Soviet era. The above-mentioned constellation of factors produced a whole range of “malefic traps” due to the inevitable ambivalence of any emancipation trajectories drawn within this framework. The mass enthusiasm for postmodernism locally created the illusion of moving in step with the times, with modern thought. This created the illusion of relevance, but at the same time the enthusiasm of Belarusian intellectuals did not have an “anchor” in their own intellectual tradition and often did not even imply appropriate historical and philosophical preparation, that is, knowledge about the “object” of deconstruction. Doesn’t this situation allow us to see certain parallels between the mass enthusiasm for a populist leader and the enthusiasm among intellectuals for the latest Western trend? Each group, in accordance with its value priorities, reacted to the emptiness/deficiency found in its life by establishing a connection with a “significant other” that they felt satisfied the corresponding void they perceived. For one group, identification with an authoritarian leader (more than 80 percent voted for Lukashenka in the second round) led to the restoration of a sense of stability in the sphere of everyday life. For another group, identification with postmodernism was not only a way to find “one’s own” discourse, but also provided the illusion of confidence in the relevance of one’s own intellectual activity. Where the fascination with postmodernist discourse was not preceded by efforts to properly master the European philosophical tradition, it may well be regarded as an “intellectual” version of populism. The particular attractiveness of Western postmodern discourse for post-Soviet philosophers can be explained, it seems to me, by the fact that it itself contained a strong emancipatory message (liberation from the framework of the metaphysics of presence, overcoming logocentrism, etc.). This resonated with the local tasks of liberation from the “centrisms” and utopias of Soviet ideology. However, for Western authors, deconstruction was a way 4

In 1994, Lukashenka was elected the first president of the Republic of Belarus.

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

87

of dealing with their own intellectual tradition; postmodern philosophy was a stage in the history of European philosophical thought. We jumped into this train as “free riders”, having, so to say, no certificates of historical legitimacy to reason in this way. In other words, it involved situational speculation on the collapse of the communist era, a jump “out of nowhere” into the European (=Western) agenda; the connection between the place to think in and speak from, and the tradition to be deconstructed was not clarified. The denial of the Soviet standards of philosophical knowledge and the ideological positioning of philosophy in the USSR explained the motivation for such speculation, but it was unable to make the voices of the post-Soviet postmodernism neophytes “relevant”. That is, such denial did not automatically make those voices relevant to the postmodernist selfproblematization of the European tradition. At the same time, it was the postmodernist discourse that gave a special illusion of relevance—work for the sake of the future. This mental relocation into the Western intellectual context unambiguously indicated that many post-Soviet philosophers identified it as the place where authentic philosophy was generated, as a terminus ad quem. However, the question of the referentiality of Western discourses in the post-Soviet Eastern European sociocultural field remained unresolved and postponed, sometimes literally displaced, for a long time. In this regard, another position seemed more honest and reflective: the one that pointed at the distance from the Western European philosophical tradition. To study it would mean to move towards authentic philosophy. The lapidary formulation of this position, authored by Anatolij Mikhailov, sounded like this: “We still have to do it all.” Mikhailov repeated this phrase systematically over many years, both setting the goal for those who wished to become and be philosophers and showing skepticism about our ability to ever achieve this goal. True philosophy, within the context of the European intellectual tradition, was presented by him as a realistic utopia. It was realistic because it existed; it was utopian because it existed without us: mentally, physically, historically, geoculturally, we were not “there” (“yet”) in the place where it was accomplished.

88

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

It was a path of eternal approximation, suggesting only one legitimate form of participation in the desired telos—the study of the history of philosophy. Let us return to the category of the full-fledged state of philosophy introduced at the beginning of the chapter. The European aspirations that set a general vector for the emancipation of philosophical thought in Belarus did not find support in the socio-political life of the country, which very soon (actually since 1996) fell out of the logic of the liberal-democratic transition. Therefore, from the viewpoint of linking to socio-political reality, the focus on mastering (appropriating) the European philosophical canon looked like an attempt to catch a shadow; the jump into postmodernist discourse looked like an attempt to flirt with the shadow of that shadow. It was some other kind of Platonic cave. In journalistic jargon, it could even be called an “ivory tower.” However, this last metaphor can be misleading, since the obsession with “Europeanization” (understood as mastering of and engaging in authentic philosophy) was not built on the snobbishly distancing of “high learning” from the bustle of the world. Instead, it was built on the naive urge of neophytes who did not thematize the fact that the mission of rehabilitating philosophy was realized under the condition that society and the political were consigned to oblivion. In this sense, as I have already noted, the “return to Europe” among intellectuals strikingly echoed the massive return to the Soviet patterns of interaction between state and society. Like this latter “return” which Fours interpreted as “regression”, the former implied no civic-political involvement. Philosophers and ordinary citizens were not bound by any common agenda: the conditional intellectual elite and the conditional civil society did not need each other—is this not the very structural or systemic regression of postSoviet Belarusian society? If philosophy is considered a way of society‘s self-awareness, then both Belarusian philosophy and Belarusian society turned out to be anything but full-fledged. The former had no referent in society, and society did not develop such a level of public self-reflection that would form a public demand for philosophy.

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

89

After the authoritarian turn (starting point: the referendum of 1996), the state started to scrutinize what was happening within philosophy and other socio-humanitarian sciences, very soon establishing a new ideological framework that determined the conditions of the (im)possibility for these sciences to develop authentically in our country. The official ideology of the Republic of Belarus as a new national state, however, diverged not only from the orientation towards European values and the philosophical tradition underlying them, but also from another wing of the emancipative orientation, which focused on the articulation and strengthening of a cultural-historical (ethnic) national consciousness. Thus, the new authoritarian ideologization of public life in general, and of the socio-humanitarian sphere in particular, matured and grew stronger against the backdrop of a counterproductive constellation of emancipative intellectual forces. These forces not only “looked in different directions”, but also conflicted with each other ideologically, hindering the reflexive integration of anti-authoritarian aspirations. The relationship between these two emancipative trends was characterized by a specific negative dialectic, which permanently undermined the possibility of forming a strong civil society in Belarus. The counterproductive divergence of conditional “Europeans” and “nationalists” was historically determined by the several circumstances. First, the consistent Russification of Belarus during the Soviet period. Second, the ideological dominance of the Soviet myth about the establishment of Belarus as an independent political entity (most citizens of the BSSR knew the history of their national culture only through the version in Soviet textbooks). Third, the rigid orientation of the Belarusian Popular Front towards an ethnic model of identity and the forced promotion of a speedy transition to the use of the Belarusian language in all spheres of public life as a political priority. This contrasted with the predominantly Russian-speaking character of the intellectual environment, which included the professional philosophical community. As a result, Belarusian intellectuals, who theoretically should have contributed to the formation of a reflexive civil society, fell into the trap of

90

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

political-linguistic dualism. The division along linguistic lines became a decisive marker of ideological orientation. As a result of this fatal split, national and liberal discourses became polarized, rather than united—as was the case, for example, in Poland or Lithuania. It took about two decades for the respective groups to begin to realize that their opposition (mutual criticism) devalued both sides and ultimately prevented the emergence of civic solidarity in the society both about the nation and about European values. The philosophical cosmopolitanism of the “Europeans” (that is, supporters of Western cosmopolitanism) made them insensitive to the problem of the Belarusian language, which did not have proper moral and political support in the country called Belarus. This insensitivity did not mean hostility. However, the stance of distancing from this problem was implicitly built on political naivety as well as on the subjective perception of the Belarusian language as being secondary on part of the “Europeans”. In turn, the primordialist attitude of the “nationalists” prevented them from sharing the enthusiasm for “returning to Europe”, as long as it was articulated and documented in Russian. As a result, idiosyncrasy in relation to the Russian language was paradoxically combined with idiosyncrasy in relation to the European (cosmopolitan) vector. The latter took on the features of “native encapsulation” (Fours) and a naive assertion of autochthonous Europeanness. As already noted, this ideological confrontation turned out to be an absolutely dead-end opposition that failed to suggest a “correct” option. That is, this opposition itself was a dead end, which prevented the synergy of anti-authoritarian intellectual forces. These forces annihilated each other, preventing the formation of an inclusive national project of Belarus as a European polity. Civil society, which would correspond to such a project, had nothing to grow on, since some “elites” did not take into account the geocultural uniqueness of the Belarusian nation, while others considered only Belarusian-speaking people as “friends” (svoyi). There was no integrating position—neither philosophical nor political—that could open the prospect and set the impetus to form a viable civil alternative to the “silent majority” of Lukashenka’s electorate. This electorate willingly swallowed ideological

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

91

stimulants like “Belarusians are Russians with a quality mark” and other derivatives of the Slavic brotherhood myth that were underpinned by nostalgia for the Soviet era. At the same time, when considered from a different angle, there was no vital civil society that, in search of self-determination and self-affirmation, would encourage the formation of the kind of “embodied”, or situated, philosophical discourse and political projecting which implemented the idea of public autonomy (acc. national sovereignty). Thus, civil society and intellectual work were not mutually founding, although both needed such a foundation. There was a kind of negative mutual reference between them. My basic intuition in this regard is that the emergence of the sovereign Republic of Belarus simultaneously released two formative ideas for a new assertion: the idea of a nation (the formation of a nation being a way to achieve the self-organization of a certain culturalhistorical community) and the idea of philosophy (philosophy being a way to realize the self-understanding of this community). These two ideas never turned out to be conjugated in public life, that is, they never intersected so that the point of their intersection was precisely civil society. The idea of a nation, which theoretically should have inspired the citizens of a new independent republic, could not find sufficient support either in ethnic or in civic nationalism, because neither of them had a chance of gaining hegemony. Ethnic nationalism lacked support due to the profound Russification of Belarusian society (not only in language, but also generally in culture and ideology); civic nationalism was unpopular due to the atrophy of individual civil agency among recent citizens of the USSR. As a result, the idea of a nation was appropriated by the autocratic president, who in 2003 set the goal of “improving ideological work” in the country, including the introduction of a course on The Ideology of the Belarusian State in all universities. In this context, a symptomatic phenomenon was the discussion among intellectuals of the “creole” identity model of the national project outlined by the Belarusian sociologist Vladimir Abušenko (2001). It opened up possibilities to go beyond the framework of the dichotomous logic of “ethnic versus civil”. However, the potential heuristic of the concept of

92

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

creole-ness did not result in a more or less coherent philosophical and political concept that would perform an integrating function. I see the reason for this, first of all, in the ambiguous use of this concept in the Belarusian intellectual milieu. For those speaking from the standpoint of the “noble” (aristocratic) ethnic ideology, creole-ness was a designation for the underdevelopment of national consciousness. Those who tried to maintain structural neutrality in their analysis of this concept have failed to uncover the promising political implications of its sociocultural hybridity. As for the idea of philosophy, I have already shown how it became “regulative” (in the Kantian sense) for the Eurocentric wing of Belarusian intellectuals. Among ethnonationally oriented intellectuals, the evental-historical work of this idea took other forms. A program stance was formulated for the articulation and cultivation of Belarusian thinking that would be relevant to the geocultural identity of Belarusians and to the peculiarities of their self-consciousness. In other words, the emancipative path was conceived in a certain sense archaeologically5—as “digging up”, revealing, reactivating, and developing the heuristic potential of local mental and symbolic forms. Belarusian thinking was expected to enable the crystallization of a national worldview, the philosophical foundations of which were outlined in the essay by Ignat Abdiralovič (Kančevskij) On the Eternal Path: A Study of the Belarusian Worldview (1993 [1921]). Ethnonationally oriented intellectuals believed that the disclosure and actualization of the national peculiarities of thinking was a condition for and a way of entering the European cultural space. It was a beautiful romantic project that went beyond academic philosophy and implicitly assumed that philosophy in the strict sense—as embodied philosophy relevant to place and time—could only be formed in Belarus on the basis of established Belarusian thinking. However, the publication in 2003 of a collection called Anthology of Modern Belarusian Thinking (edited by Ales’ Ancipenka and Valiantsin Akudovič, 2003) rather demonstrated the failure of the declared 5

The name of the cult Belarusian magazine published by Valery Bulgakov— Arche—is indicative in this regard.

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

93

project, regardless of the value of the texts collected there. The content of the collection not only diverged from the original idea, but also compromised its feasibility. The anthology included translations into Belarusian of good studies in the history of philosophy by Russian-speaking authors that represented the Eurocentric direction. Thus, the speculative approach in compiling the collection was conceptually closer to the idea of creole-ness and followed the pragmatic logic of “Belarusianization” by means of translating the “foreign” into the “native” rather than the romantic ideal of ethnonational authenticity. However, at the ideal level of the original program stance of both the Europe-oriented and the ethnocentric philosophical/ intellectual communities, one can observe remarkable mirror parallelism, or negative complementarity between the two. Both parties conceived their work as a “return to Europe”: but in the first case, the return meant the assimilation and development of the culture of philosophical reflection, while in the second, it meant the resuscitation and cultivation of national consciousness. Tellingly, the adherents of the second wing—whether in politics or in the intellectual sphere—were called sviadomyja (self-aware). The fatal divergence of these two modes of “return” was structurally determined by the afore-mentioned political-linguistic dualism. For the self-aware supporters of an ethno-national political project, the Belarusian language meant a European choice, while the Russian language indicated a pro-Russian choice. The rigid political codification of the two languages hindered bridge building—or the creation of a kind of mediation—between the position of the selfaware and the Eurocentric position of Russian-speaking intellectuals who did not identify the use of Russian with a political choice of a pro-Russian national project.6 The first “return” allowed one, through the school of academic philosophy, to realize oneself as part of European universalism. The second one enabled one to position oneself, via the geocultural archeology of Belarusian thinking, as part of a specific European nation. The second path was, of course, less ephemeral, since it at 6

There might be cases of such identification, but they were not prevailing.

94

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

least assumed that there was such a task to correlate and to connect specific ideas of nation and philosophy.7 However, a bitter irony implied in the Eastern European glocality affected both parties of the emancipative aspirations of Belarusian intellectuals equally. They were equally affected exactly because these two parties formed a negative complementarity, i.e. such a structural constellation that was inherently marked by the negative dialectic described above. The bitter irony concerns the relationship with the terminus ad quem—Europe. The gap between the plane of imagination (i.e., an ideal historical reference point for both authentic thinking and an authentic way of life) and the plane of reality directly reveals the symptomatic discomfort of the philosopher’s/intellectual’s position, regardless of which wing they belong to. Neither the exploration of Europe there, in the intellectual landscape of the Western philosophical tradition, nor the detection of Europe here, in the archaeological traces and folds of ethnic culture made a Belarusian scholar/intellectual into a fullfledged “European.” Belarusian intellectuals failed to become European in the eyes of people from “Western countries”, as well as in the eyes of those from countries that joined the EU after the collapse of the socialist camp. With the expansion of the EU to the east, we became “third-rate” Europeans, who were taken into account only as a result of the changing alignments of the international political conjuncture. In terms of national culture, of thought, and of philosophy, the “promised Europe”—through various programs of support and cooperation—with its inexorable bureaucratic logic, fixed us with the status of “recipients”. This suggested that the conditions, format and content of our presence in the European symbolic space (the space of significative practices and knowledge production) were predetermined and regulated by the Western taxonomy, wherein we could only be more or less successful “followers” of the (Western) European canons and trends. That is, we could only be recognized and acclaimed as

7

The same task was formulated by Vladimir Mackevič, heir to the ideas of the Moscow methodological circle created by Georgij Ščedrovitskij, in his famous imperative call to “think Belarus” (Mackevič 1994).

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

95

“imitators”. So, the famous phrase “there’s no me” (miane niama) by Valiancin Akudovič had an even greater range of application than the author bore in mind (Akudovič 1998). To conclude this review of the key structural reasons why the emancipative philosophical discourse in post-Soviet Belarus failed, I would like to note some significant positive shifts in the implementation of the idea of philosophy that occurred despite the counterproductive constellation of the intellectual forces outlined above. The main achievement in this regard was the practical realization of philosophy in the form of educational projects—the establishment of higher educational institutions. These institutions have become iconic autonomous “imagined communities” in the Belarusian intellectual landscape. The Belarusian Collegium (1997) and the European Humanities University (EHU, 1992) were created, first of all, by the efforts of philosophers. The Collegium was headed by Ales’ Ancipenka; Anatolij Mikhailov took the lead in EHU. The first brought together nationally oriented scholars and thinkers (Valiancin Akudovič, Ihar Babkou, Irina Dubeneckaja and others); the second united Russian-speaking academic philosophers (Vladimir Dunaev, Grigorij Minenkov, Nikolaj Semenov, Tatiana Shchyttsova and others). On the one hand, the creation of these higher education institutions reinforced the dichotomy of Russian-speaking and Belarusian-speaking Eurocentrisms. On the other hand, for philosophy, it became a detour on the journey to becoming full-fledged. Having failed on the ideal plane of theoretical reflection relevant to its own chronotop, philosophy paved a way forward in the form of practical action: via the creation of institutions that allowed the formation of an appropriate culture of thinking. Philosophers, who for a long time were unable to realize themselves through the creation of full-fledged theories finally turned out to be capable of a political-philosophical deed relevant to the epoch—Bildung. The closure of the EHU by the authorities in 2004 and its forced relocation to Lithuania clearly testified to the success of the emancipatory and educational work of the university. The expulsion did not prevent the university from further fulfilling its practical philosophical mission relevant to the objective request of

96

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

Belarusian society. More than 60 percent of graduates returned to Belarus to apply their education, their culture of thinking, and their horizon of self-understanding in various professional fields and institutions, mostly non-governmental ones. Generally, today, one can clearly identify two complementary processes that gradually prepared the ground for the future possibility for the ideas of nation and philosophy to intertwine, which also implies the possibility to reflexively assert public autonomy as a political project. These processes include various educational initiatives—enlightenment work—by intellectuals,8 on the one hand, and the development of commercial and non-commercial non-governmental organizations, a multifaceted civil society, on the other.

Conclusion Realistic Utopia “After” The possibility of a “post-2020” philosophy was entirely determined by the upheaval we experienced and the revolutionary civic upsurge that followed. With regard to this, Jan Patočka‘s concept of shaking conceived of as a constitutive moment of both authentic existence and true history (Patočka 1996) seems very helpful in understanding the Belarusian events at issue. Patočka believed that true history begins due to the shaking of familiar, everyday meanings: when everything that seemed undoubted and reliable collapses, and there is a need for a radical revision of the perceived foundations of human life. The Czech philosopher interprets true history as a process of responsible rethinking and reestablishment of the principles by which people decide to live together in a given society. In this concern, he understands the moment of shaking as an existential experience that gives rise to philosophy, politics and history and determines the essential connection between them. What is crucial for Patočka‘s philosophy of history is that a historical process of responsible transformation

8

In this regard, it is also worth noting such projects as the Flying University (Tatiana Vodolažskaya, Vladimir Mackevič) and the European College of Liberal Arts in Belarus (Alexander Adamjanc, Olga Šparaga).

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

97

of the human world is only possible on the basis of “the solidarity of the shaken”. This solidarity is the key political concept which suggests that people who have realized the responsibility for their lifeworld have the intention and determination to act together in the name of common goals. For Czechoslovakian dissidents who decided to publicly defend human rights in their country, Charter 77 became a concrete example of such solidarity and, at the same time, a living proof of the essential connection between philosophy (as a critical clarification of basic principles and their meanings), politics (as a practical achievement of common goals), and history (as a movement of social transformations). The Belarusian revolution is also an example of “the solidarity of the shaken”. From this point of view, August 2020 can be considered the beginning of an authentic historical process in Belarus, which, before that, was merely distinguished by the latent premonition of its own historical possibilities. After the events of August 9–11, 2020, hundreds of thousands of Belarusians realized that returning to their usual lives was no longer possible and that the political re-establishment of our society should be our common historical task. It must be admitted that we are only at the beginning of the journey. There is a huge field for joint reflexive work that requires a lot of time, effort, patience, and will for cooperation and mutual understanding. This work is necessary if we are to proceed from our existential shakenness, which prevents regression of consciousness to a passive acceptance of the status quo, towards a practical re-establishment of political institutions (ultimately, of the state as such). On the one hand, the large-scale repressions of 2021 and the military escalation in the post-Soviet region of the beginning of 20229 cannot but lead society into a state of stupor, which experts call depoliticization. On the other hand, they highlight the relevance of the agenda of the revolutionary 2020: the

9

This chapter was written before the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

98

TATIANA SHCHYTTSOVA

majority of Belarusians deny a political order built on violence, militarization, and speculations on state’s sovereignty.10 In August 2020, we—a civil society of Belarus—made an unprecedented historical breakthrough towards realizing ourselves as subjects of history, towards the realization of a new Belarus. In order to co-respond to this shakenness and to be engaged in the work of history as a meaning-generating operator, philosophy needs to respond to the evental-historical demand that emerged along with the political epiphany of the solidary democratic plurality of the protest community. Since this plurality designated itself “We are Belarusians,”11 philosophers should help to articulate and comprehend a new (self-)understanding of the nation that will correspond to the given historical moment and epoch. This singular request for a new conceptualization of the nation is the factical condition of possibility for a new historical positioning of philosophy in Belarusian society, for philosophy’s becoming full-fledged there. That this practice of philosophy has to be performed in such an essential intertwinement with the political agenda appears historically associated with the teleology of the new political self-assertion of the nation. It endows philosophy with a specific aura of utopia. Acting in the ideal plane as the selfconsciousness of the nation, philosophy, in reality, will always be realized as the self-consciousness of a particular community of citizens who relate themselves to the idea of the nation.

Bibliography Abdiralovič, I. (1993 [1921]). Advečnym šljaham. Dasledzіny belarusskago svetagljadu [from Bel.: On the eternal path. A study of the Belarussian worldview]. Mensk: Navuka I tekhnika.

10

11

This statement is based on the results of a number of sociological surveys conducted by various independent institutions and initiatives (Chatham House, National Poll and others). Posters with the inscription “We are Belarusians” appeared during the mass protests of 2020.

PHILOSOPHY AS A REALISTIC UTOPIA

99

Abušenko, V. (2001). Mickevič kak “kreol”: ot “tutejših genealogij” k genealogii “tutejšasci” [from Bel.: Mickiewicz as “creole”: from the “local genealogies” toward the genealogy of “localness”]. Fragmenty 1–2, nd., http://knihi.com/storage/frahmenty/sem-abuszenka.htm (accessed: February 20, 2022). Akudovič, V. (1998). Mianje niama. Rozdumy na ruinah calaveka [from Bel.: There’s no me. Reflections on the ruins of man]. Міnsk: EuroForum. Anciapenko, A., Akudovič, V. (eds) (2003). Antalogija suchasnaga belaruskaga myslennja [from Bel.: The anthology of contemporary Belarussian thinking]. SPb: Nevskij Prostor. Badiou, A. (1999). Manifesto for Philosophy. New York:SUNY Press. Fours, V. (2005). Belorusskaja real’nost’ v sisteme koordinat globalizacii [from Rus.: The Belarussian reality in the coordinates of globalization]. Topos 10: 5–18. Mackevič, V. (1994). Dumat’ Belarus’ [from Rus.: To think Belarus]. EuroBelarus, December 12, 1994, https://eurobelarus.info/news/ society/1994/12/12/dumat-belarus.html (accessed: February 20, 2022). Patočka, J. (1996). Heretical Essays in the Philosophy of History. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Readings, B. (1997). The University in Ruins. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shchyttsova, T. (2014). Negativnaja dialektika osvoboždenija. Filosofija v Belarusi posle 1991 goda. In: Shchyttsova, T. Antropologija. Etika. Politika [from Rus.: Anthropology. Ethics. Politics]. Vilnius: EGU, 193–201. Shchyttsova, T. (2021). Suverennaja vlast i etika nenasilija: strukturnyje osnovanija grazdanskoj mobilizacii v Belarusi [from Rus.: The sovereign power and the ethics of non-violence: structural foundations of the civic mobilization in Belarus’]. Topos 2: 119–144.

3

Georgia

Philosophy in Independent Georgia Giorgi Khuroshvili

1

Introduction

On November 25, 1990, the popular Georgian philosopher Merab Mamardašvili died suddenly. Mamardašvili devoted a large part of his public work to showing how naive was the belief in the communist paradise, the main idea of which was the equating of life with the ideal. The late Soviet Union, especially Soviet Georgia, was a country of paradoxes: on the one hand, the regime fought against anti-Soviet manifestations in the same way as before; on the other hand, it allowed relatively free non-Soviet-minded people to live and work—this fact was especially visible in art, literature, and philosophy. There were many important names in Georgian philosophy of the 20th century, but Mamardašvili overshadowed them all with his popularity and influence. However, Mamardašvili was not a representative of the traditional classical line of Georgian philosophy. Philosophy was practiced in Georgia since the ancient times. As early as the 4th century, there was a rhetorical school in Phasis, where prominent Greek philosophers Eugenios and Themistius studied. However, the beginning of Georgian philosophy dates actually back in the Middle Ages, when the great Georgian thinkers Ioane Petritsi and Arsen of Ikalto started their studies in Christian Platonism, Neo-Platonism, and Aristotelianism. Since this period, the main line of Georgian philosophy has been Christian philosophy: this direction achieved great success in Georgia both in the Middle Ages and in the early Modern times, and up to the 19th century it had a fundamental influence on the content and character of Georgian philosophical thought. This traditional situation has changed dramatically in the 20th century, especially since the 1920s, 101

102 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI after Georgia was occupied by Soviet Russia. In Soviet Georgia, Christian philosophy almost disappeared, but it found refuge in the history of philosophy, where the Georgian philosophers—due to the pressure of the regime—considered these issues only superficially, in a purely historicist perspective, while main direction of philosophy in Georgia, like in other Soviet republics, became Marxism-Leninism. Thus, in the Soviet Union, Georgian philosophy broke off from its main traditional line, and began to develop in a qualitatively different way. Nevertheless, in Soviet Georgia, philosophy acquired an academic form and character. It was firmly established in several leading Georgian universities. Since 1930s interesting and influential Georgian philosophers appeared on Georgian philosophical stage: Shalva Nutsubidze (1888–1969) and Mose Gogiberidze (1897–1949) made a significant contribution to the research of the history of Georgian philosophy and in this regard left an extensive philosophical legacy. Sergi Danelia (1888–1963) has done a lot of fundamental research on the important philosophers of the Enlightenment. Konstantine Bakradze (1898– 1970) initiated the research of neo-Kantianism, existentialism, and phenomenology. Savle Tsereteli (1907–1966) played a turning role in the foundation and development of dialectical logic. Zurab Kakabadze (1926–1982) and Niko Chavchavadze (1923–1997) worked productively in the fields of philosophy of culture, aesthetics and ethics. Tamaz Buachidze (1930–2001) successfully worked on the issues of Hegel’s philosophy and philosophy of life. Merab Mamardašvili, who actively studied Hegel in the first half of his life, played an important role in the development of the philosophy of culture in the 1970s–1980s, and offered his numerous listeners new models of understanding Georgian, Russian, and European cultures. A few months after Mamardašvili’s death, on April 9, 1991, Georgia declared independence from the Soviet Union. The Georgian philosophical school, which tried to escape from Soviet censorship even during the Soviet times, met this important event more prepared than other intellectual fields: Georgian philosophers

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 103 actively engaged in the foundation and development of the new state.

2

Philosophical Processes Since 1991

2.1 The new beginning of studies of the history of Georgian philosophy The research of the history of Georgian philosophy began in the 19th century. In the 20th century, these studies acquired an academic character, and this direction of philosophical research was firmly established in academia. However, due to the fact that old Georgian philosophy was, to a large extent, Christian philosophy, it could not be fully studied, interpreted, and practiced in Soviet Georgia, as far as such philosophy was fundamentally unacceptable for ideological reasons. In the Soviet period, as a rule, independent textbooks in philosophy were neither written nor published. In the Soviet Union, textbooks of philosophy, more precisely of Marxist philosophy, had to be written according to a single principle for all universities in all republics. The directive came from the Moscow, and textbooks on Marxist philosophy were printed only after passing strict censorship. In the 1990s, in the wake of liberation from ideological pressure, professor Guram Tevzadze (1932–2018) initiated the process of thorough processing of the history of Georgian philosophy at the department of history of philosophy at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. This later spread to various Georgian philosophical research centers. As a result of this initiative, the works of outstanding researchers of the history of Georgian philosophy by Shalva Nutsubidze, Korneli Kekelidze and others were republished. The “Proclus’ Commentary” by the great 12th century Georgian Christian Neoplatonist Ioane Petritsi was translated from ancient Georgian into modern Georgian language (Melikishvili 1999). Under the supervision of professor Tevzadze and professor Mikheil Makharadze, 4 volumes of the history of Georgian philosophy were created, in which many previously unknown events of the history of Georgian philosophy were

104 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI described in details (Makharadze 2013). In the department of the history of philosophy of Tbilisi State University and in Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy of the Georgian Academy of Sciences the special processing of the intellectual heritage of important authors of Georgian philosophy, Ioane Petritsi (XII), Arsen of Ikalto (XII), Ephraim Mtsire (XI), Anton Bagrationi (1720– 1788), Solomon Dodashvili (1805–1836) and etc., started, which was followed by numerous conferences, seminars, and publications of new materials on their creative work. In this period, after the negative Soviet influence, the Christian-metaphysical, ontological, and theological dimensions of the old Georgian philosophy became relevant again. Together with Georgian philosophers, Georgian philologists made a significant contribution to the research and new interpretation of GeorgianByzantine intellectual relations in the Middle Ages, as a result of which the influence of the Cappadocian Fathers (Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa) and the great Byzantine thinkers John of Damascus, Michael Psellos, John Italus, on Georgian philosophical thinking was rediscovered. 2.2 Philosophical institutions in the 1990s Philosophical research in Georgia in the 1990s was mainly conducted at Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy and the Faculty of Philosophy of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University. Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy was founded in 1946 as part of the Georgian Academy of Science and since then it was the leading center of philosophical research in Georgia. Until 1977, the institute was headed by the influential Georgian philosopher Niko Chavchavadze, and from 1977 to 2001, the director of the institute was the prominent philosopher Tamaz Buachidze (1930–2001). In the 1990s, the institute published several important studies and organized many academic events in the areas of history of philosophy, aesthetics, phenomenology, and logic. Philosophical studies were traditionally carried out by the Faculty of Philosophy of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 105 University, professors of the faculty were actively participating in scientific conferences and publishing academic papers. Nevertheless, due to the difficult political and economic situation in Georgia in the 1990s, these institutions could not have a proper influence on the public and educational life of the country, and their work was mostly isolated from the wider public life. 2.3 Georgian-German philosophical relations Since the 1990s, one of the main challenges has been to bring the Georgian philosophical legacy to the international academic arena and to establish close contacts with important European philosophical centers. In this regard, a significant turning point occurred in 1997, when the department of history of philosophy at Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University under the initiative of professor Tevzadze established close relations with the department of history of ancient and medieval philosophy and the Institute of Philosophy at the Ruhr University in Bochum. From the German side, professor Theo Kobusch and professor Burkhard Mojsisch engaged in cooperation with Georgian colleagues. Within the framework of this cooperation, the successful students of the faculty of philosophy of Tbilisi State University had the opportunity to continue their studies at Ruhr University in Bochum. As a result of this cooperation, young Georgian philosophers Tengiz Iremadze, Giga Zedania, and Tamar Tsophurashvili wrote and successfully defended their PhD dissertations at the Ruhr University in Bochum, and thus paved the way for many other students to continue their studies in Bochum. An important development of Georgian-German philosophical relations was the conference held in Tbilisi in 1998— “Neoplatonism and subjectivity. From Plotinus to German Idealism”—with the participation of prominent Georgian and German philosophers. In the framework of this conference it was possible to present and internationalize the results of Georgian studies on Neoplatonism and German Idealism. These relations have developed in qualitatively new directions since 2001, when with the funding of the Volkswagen

106 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Foundation and with the participation of Georgian philosophers Mamuka Beriashvili, Gigi Tevzadze, and Tengiz Iremadze, the Institute for the Study of Western Thought was founded in Tbilisi. The institute was publishing a Yearbook “Philosophical insight” edited by M. Beriashvili, M. Bichashvili, and U. R. Jeck. On the basis of the same institute, one part of the higher education reform project was prepared, and in 2006, as a result of the union of several institutes Ilia State University was formed; in this university philosophy is among priority disciplines. In the wake of the development of Georgian-German philosophical relations, prominent German philosophers Theo Kobusch and Burkhard Mojsisch were elected as foreign members of the Georgian National Academy of Sciences, while German philosophers Walter Jaeschke, Udo Reinhold Jeck, and Helmut Schneider established closer ties with Georgian philosophical institutions. Professor Jeck of Bochum Ruhr University has been actively researching the tradition of Georgian philosophy for years, his studies in this field have been published many times in German, English and Georgian languages. The former director of the Hegel Archive in Bochum, professor Schneider made a significant contribution to the revival of Hegel and German idealism studies in Georgia, also he published many studies on Hegel in Georgian and supervised several doctoral dissertations dedicated to this topic. In the same context, the work of the outstanding Georgian philosopher and writer Givi Margvelashvili (1927–2020) should be mentioned, who intensively studied German existentialism, phenomenology, and philosophies of Heidegger and Hartmann. Margvelashvili has been working in Germany since the beginning of the 1990s and played an important role in the development of Georgian-German intellectual ties. 2.4 New studies of Ioane Petritsi and medieval Georgian philosophy As mentioned above, the founder of Georgian philosophy was the medieval Georgian thinker Ioane Petritsi. He was the most important medieval Georgian philosopher who especially

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 107 practiced Neoplatonic philosophy. He translated Nemesius of Emesa’s “On the Nature of Man” into Georgian, but especially important is the Georgian translation of Proclus’ “Elements of Theology,” to which he added an extensive commentary. Petritsi’s commentary on “The Elements of Theology” represents an important reception of this work, as the Georgian philosopher immanently based it on the philosophy of Proclus himself. Thus Petritsi’s work is in the center of special attention when studying the philosophy of Proclus, especially along with other commentaries on Proclus written in the Middle Ages. There has always been interest in Petritsi’s philosophy in Georgia. In the 18th–19th centuries, Georgian philosophers Anton Bagrationi, Ioane Bagrationi (1766–1830) and others were actively interested in Petritsi’s philosophy. In the 20th century, Petritsi was the subject of research of many Georgian philosophers, philologists, and historians Sergi Gorgadze (1876–1929), Ivane Javakhishvili (1876–1940), Shalva Nutsubidze, Mose Gogiberidze, Korneli Kekelidze, Shalva Khidasheli (1911–1994) and other prominent Georgian researchers made a significant contribution to the research of his intellectual legacy. Petritsi’s academic studies free from Soviet ideological influence were few, and it remained a serious challenge to properly present the legacy of this great Georgian philosopher in the international academic world in 20th century. In this regard, since the 1990s, professor Tevzadze initiated new studies of Petritsi’s philosophy (Tevzadze 1992, 1993, 2004, 2006) and involved other Georgian philosophers in this work, under his initiative was restored “Petritsi Philosophical Society.” At the end of the 1990s, a new generation of Georgian philosophers was intensively involved in Petritsi’s studies, among which the works of Tengiz Iremadze, Lela Aleksidze, and Levan Gigineishvili are noteworthy. Tengiz Iremadze made a significant contribution to the new understanding of Petritsi’s philosophy: his works promoted the legacy of this great Georgian philosopher both in Georgia and in the international academic community. In 2004, an extensive monograph “Thinking Conceptions in Neoplatonism. On the

108 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Reception of the Proclus’ Philosophy in the German and Georgian Middle Ages” by Iremadze was published in Germany (Iremadze 2004). In this book, he analysed the reception of the ancient Greek philosophy of mind by German and Georgian thinkers during the European Middle Ages. The study focuses on the philosophical treatises on the human mind by the German thinkers Dietrich of Freiberg and Berthold of Moosburg and the Georgian philosopher Ioane Petritsi, and provides a thorough analysis of their writings. Different textual traditions of transmission and interpretation of Proclus’ philosophy are presented and interpreted in this book. For the first time, Ioane Petritsi’s thought and his interpretation of Proclus’ conception of soul and reason became in the focus of an intense philosophical and historical analysis. Also, it is worth noting Tengiz Iremadze’s article in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, in which he reviews Petritsi’s philosophical work. This article played an important role in raising awareness of Petritsi's work (Iremadze 2006). Professor Iremadze devoted many articles to Petritsi’s philosophy in Georgian, English, and German languages. Last year, his new book ‘The Philosophy of Ioane Petritsi’ was published in Georgian (Iremadze 2021). Lela Alexidze, together with her German colleague Lutz Bergemann, translated Ioane Petritsi’s work “Proclus’ Commentary” into German, with extensive notes and broad introduction to the publication (Alexidze & Bergemann 2008). This publication was the first translation of Petritsi’s work into a European language, which made it possible for German-speaking scholars of philosophy to have access to this most important text of medieval Georgian philosophy on their language. Lela Aleksidze also published an in-depth study of Ioane Petritsi’s philosophy in Georgian (Alexidze 2008). In her book professor Alexidze examined the philosophy of Ioane Petritsi in the broader context of ancient philosophy and showed its influence on the reception and transformation of the ideas of ancient philosophy by medieval philosophers. Levan Gigineishvili published a book with comprehensive exposition of the philosophical system of Ioane Petritsi in English (Gigineishvili 2007). Gigineishvili demonstrated how Petritsi

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 109 explained difficulties of Proclus’ philosophy and tried to prove the basic affinity between the Platonic and the Biblical traditions. Gigineishvili exposed the entire system of Petritsi’s thought in the light of ideas of Proclus, other Neoplatonists, and the Church Fathers. Also, the scholar has published a number of articles dedicated to the Petritsi’s philosophy; currently he works on the English translation of Petritsi’s work. In this way, the research, interpretation, and popularization of the philosophy of Ioane Petritsi has become one of the important directions of modern Georgian philosophy. Besides the mentioned scholars, other Georgian philosophers and philologists also actively work on the study of Petritsi’s philosophy. 2.5 Translations of philosophical texts Translation of important philosophical texts has always been a priority in Georgia. Even in the Middle Ages, there was a great tradition of translating the most important theological and philosophical texts from Greek into Georgian. In the 18th–19th centuries, this tradition was renewed and thus the translations of German and French philosophical texts emerged in the Georgian language. In the Soviet era, due to ideological pressure, there were many translations of the Marxist philosophical works. However, with the individual efforts of Georgian philosophers and translators, it became possible to simultaneously translate the works written by Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and some other European philosophers. A new wave of translations of great philosophical texts began in the Perestroika period, when Guram Tevzadze translated Martin Heidegger’s “Being and Time” as well as Immanuel Kant’s “Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone.” Since the 1990s, the translation of philosophical texts has acquired a more intensive character. In this regard, the contribution of famous Georgian translators Bachana Bregvadze and Dodo Labuchidze-Khopheria is outstanding. Bachana Bregvadze translated into Georgian the “Confessions” by St. Augustine, Plato’s “Republic,” “Parmenides,” “Ion,” “Hippias Major,” “Meno,” “Apology,” “Phaedo,” and other

110 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI dialogues, as well as the works by Francois de La Rochefoucauld, Niccolò Machiavelli, Marcus Aurelius and other important authors. Dodo Labuchidze-Khopheria made a significant contribution to the translation of French philosophical and socio-political texts into Georgian: works written by Montesquieu, Rousseau, Diderot, Descartes, Tocqueville, Montaigne, Durkheim, and Foucault. It is also worth noting the contribution of Lamara Ramishvili who translated several works of Immanuel Kant into Georgian,. The philosophical translation in nowadays Georgia is very active at New Georgian University, Ilia State University, and Grigol Robakidze University. As a result of the work done by the Georgian translators since the 1990s, the gap that existed between the Georgian and western philosophies during the Soviet period was significantly filled. 2.6 Re-establishment of Christian philosophy As mentioned above, historically, the main direction of Georgian philosophy was Christian thought, which was thoroughly developed by Georgian scholars for centuries. After the liberation from the Soviet ideological pressure, in the wake of the revival of studies of the history of Georgian philosophy, the process of development of Christian philosophy began. First at Grigol Robakidze University and then at the New Georgian University, professor Tengiz Iremadze made an important contribution to restoring and enriching the tradition of Christian philosophy. Georgian Christian philosophy begins in the Middle Ages, when the Georgian monarch Davit IV the Builder (1073–1125) founded a monastery and a philosophical academy in Gelati, Western Georgia. According to King David’s historian, the king wanted Gelati to become the new Athens and the second Jerusalem. Gelati has indeed become a place of collaboration between knowledge and faith, church and academy, philosophy and theology. The paradigm of the synthesis of Jerusalem and Athens became the main axis of Georgian thinking since then. It was in Gelati that Ioane Petritsi taught the philosophy of Proclus, the antiChristian thinker, in the academy, while a Christian mass was held

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 111 in the Gelati monastery just a few meters away. In this way, the cooperation between the paradigms of Jerusalem and Athens, along with the enrichment of Georgian thought, gave Georgian culture the experience of tolerance, which became one of the main characteristics of this culture over the centuries (Khuroshvili 2014). Thus, a model of Christian philosophy was formed in Georgia, which developed on the one hand in the direction of theological philosophy, and on the other hand in the direction of Christian Neoplatonic philosophy. These traditions are widely reflected in Georgian thinkers of the post-Petritsi Middle Ages, in this respect the works of Shota Rustaveli (11–12th c.) Ioane Shavteli (11–12th c.) and Nikoloz Gulaberisdze (11–12th c.) are worth to be mentioned. These directions of Christian philosophy were continued in 18–19th centuries by Anton Bagrationi and his philosophical school. Since 2007 under the guidance of Tengiz Iremadze, the new generation of Georgian philosophers revived this old Georgian philosophical tradition and began its systematic development. Old Georgian philosophical ideas and paradigms were reworked and reflected in many academic publications in the 1990s–2010s. This was highly important for the understanding and re-interpretation of the Georgian Christian philosophical tradition, as well as of the Georgian culture, its character and nature. Exploration of the traditions of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism in a Christian context was also renewed. The model for understanding of the Georgian philosophical tradition was developed in an intercultural perspective, which included the proper presentation of GeorgianByzantine and Georgian-Armenian philosophical relations and the rediscovery of common philosophical and cultural foundations. In the context of Georgian-Armenian philosophical relations, professor Iremadze put forward the paradigm of Caucasian philosophy, which was founded on the continuous intellectual cooperation between Georgian and Armenian scholars on the one hand, and on the connection between the philosophies of the great Armenian thinker David the Invincible (6th c.) and the prominent Georgian philosopher Peter the Iberian (5th c.), on the other hand. In this regard, the Georgian philosophical developments of the 18th

112 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI century were especially processed, as far as in this period the works of David the Invincible were translated into the Georgian. In connection with this process, the Online Encyclopedia of Georgian Philosophy and Theology was created. This project started in 2020 by Tengiz Iremadze and Giorgi Khuroshvili. Currently, about 30 scholars are involved in the project, and two hundred articles have already been created about important figures, ideas, paradigms, concepts, and schools related to Georgian philosophy and theology. 2.7 The process of internationalization of Georgian philosophy and its current results The process of internationalization of contemporary Georgian philosophy began intensively in the 1990s following the development of Georgian-German philosophical relations. However, in the 21st century, the internationalization of Georgian philosophy reached a qualitatively new stage. In this regard, several big international conferences is worth to mention: 







The international conference dedicated to the book “Thinking Conceptions in Neoplatonism” by Tengiz Iremadze was held at Grigol Robakidze University in 2008, with the participation of Georgian, German, and American philosophers. The international conference “St. Augustine, A Teacher of Christianity” was held at New Georgian University in 2017, with the participation of Georgian and German philosophers. The international conference “Philosophy and Christianity: Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion” was held at New Georgian University in 2018, with the participation of outstanding researchers of Hegel’s philosophy from Georgia, Germany, France, and Italy. The international conference “Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism in Eastern and Western Christianity” was held at Ilia University in 2019, with the participation of Georgian, Swiss, Belgian, Austrian, Czech and Greek philosophers.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 113 In parallel with the conferences, several international collections published in cooperation between Georgian and European philosophers should be mentioned: Philosophie und Sozialtheorie, Bd. 1, Leben verstehen. Ed. by T. Iremadze, U. R. Jeck, H. Schneider. Logos Verlag Berlin, 2014. The main idea of this book is relation of life and history as it was elaborated by Dilthey and his school, as well as by Schopenhauer, Simmel, Bergson and important Georgian representatives of the philosophy of life (Grigol Robakidze, Aleksandre Janelidze, Zurab Kakabadze). Georgian Christian Thought and Its Cultural Context: Memorial Volume for the 125th Anniversary of Shalva Nutsubidze (1888-1969). Ed. by T. Nutsubidze, C. B. Horn, B. Lourie. Brill Academic Pub, 2014. The book contains contributions dedicated to the life and work of Shalva Nutsubidze and his scholarly interests: the Christian Orient from the 5th to the 7th century, the Georgian 11th century, the Neoplatonic philosopher Ioane Petritsi and his epoch, Shota Rustaveli and mediaeval Georgian culture. Veritas et subtilitas: Truth and Subtlety in the History of Philosophy. Ed. by T. Iremadze, U. R. Jeck. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 2018. The book provides a collection of scientific papers which are dedicated to the memory of Burkhard Mojsisch. The collection includes papers on ancient, medieval, and early modern philosophy, and demonstrates the importance of the historical research of philosophy at the beginning of the 21st century and its current trends. It documents historical aspects of important philosophical discussions of contemporaneity (e.g., in the fields of intercultural philosophy and interdisciplinary philosophy, such as philosophy of neuroscience). The authors of the book’s chapters are leading specialists of ancient and medieval philosophy. The collection includes papers in German, English, and French.

114 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Héritages platoniciens et aristotéliciens dans l’Orient et l’Occident (IIe-XVIe siècles). Ed. by T. Suarez-Nani, T. Tsopurashvili. Reichert Verlag. 2021. The book brings together contributions from scholars of ancient and medieval thought, it explores the reception of Neoplatonism and Aristotelianism in Western philosophy during the extensive period between the 2nd and 16th centuries: in Greek and Latin patristics (Valentinian Gnosis, Augustine of Hippo, Method of Olympus, Theodore Studite), in the Greek philosophy of late Antiquity (Plotinus, Ammonios), in the thought of the Latin Middle Ages (Thomas Aquinas, Henry of Ghent, Meister Eckhart) and medieval Georgia (Ioane Petritsi), as well as among certain Renaissance authors (M. Ficin, F. Patrizi, F. Suarez). This volume helps to overcome the temporal and geographical barriers that separate various eras and cultural regions in order to embrace a broader perspective and look at the long duration of Western thought. Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion: Perspectives—Contexts— Intercultural References. Ed. by T. Iremadze, U. R. Jeck, H. Schneider. Europäischer Universitätsverlag, 2022. The book contains papers on Hegel`s philosophy of religion, who paid special attention to the relationship between philosophy and religion. His thought became one of the most important keys to the philosophical understanding of religions and the ways to reconcile philosophy and religion, knowledge and faith. This academic collection included the materials of the international conference “Philosophy and Christianity: Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion,” organized by the Archive of the Caucasian Philosophy and Theology of the New Georgian University. Scholars of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel’s philosophy from Germany, France, Italy and Georgia are the contributors of the collection.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 115

3

Philosophical Centers in Contemporary Georgia

3.1 The Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Grigol Robakidze University The Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Grigol Robakidze University was established in 2007. The main goal of the Institute is the implementation of research in philosophy and social sciences. According to this goal the Institute publishes a variety of periodicals, organizes scientific conferences, and implements research (including opinion polls, scientific expeditions, and etc.). The Institute closely collaborates with foreign research centers for philosophy and social sciences, i. e. Ruhr University Bochum, Herzog August Bibliothek, University of Cologne, Sofia University, Stanford University etc. The Institute offers a doctoral program in Philosophy. The governing body of the institute is its Directorate, which consists of three members; the chief advisory body of the Institute is its scientific council, which is composed of outstanding Georgian and foreign scholars. The director of the Institute is professor Tengiz Iremadze. The major directions of academic study of the Institute are intercultural philosophy, Georgian and European Neoplatonism in the context of modernity, political philosophy, neurophilosophy, sociology of media, sociology of terror, the philosophy of war and peace, Nietzsche’s philosophy, and phenomenology. There are several academic series at the institute: “Philosophy-Sociology-Media Theory,” “Classical and Contemporary Texts of Philosophy and Sociology,” “Philosophy and Social Sciences Today,” and “Classical Texts of American Political Thought.” Since its foundation, the Institute has made a significant contribution to the promotion and development of philosophy in Georgia. It organized at least ten international and local conferences, many seminars and public lectures at Grigol Robakidze University. So far, the Institute has published over forty books (monographs, collected papers volumes, and translations).

116 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI 3.2 The Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy of Ilia State University The Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy was founded in 1946 as the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Georgian SSR. Since 2010, the Savle Tsereteli Institute of Philosophy joined Ilia State University as an autonomous part of the faculty of sciences and arts. Therefore, along with the academic staff, doctoral students and graduate masters of Ilia State University are involved in the Institute’s projects. Currently, the following research areas are represented in the Institute of Philosophy: analytical philosophy, philosophy of language, history of logic, history of medieval philosophy, ethics and morality (covering also ethics and bioethics, moral philosophy, political philosophy, feminist philosophy). It also promotes the research of archival materials of the Georgian Philosophical School (processing and publishing archival works of philosophers working in the Institute of Philosophy). The translation works of philosophical literature are intensively carried out in the institute, which serves to translate classical and modern philosophical texts into Georgian. Under the patronage of the Institute, the BA, MA and PhD programs in philosophy are implemented at Ilia State University. Since 2010, the Institute has published more than twenty scholarly books and has held several international and national conferences. The Institute often organizes public lectures and seminars on various topics of philosophy. The current director of the Institute is professor Tamar Tsophurashvili. 3.3 The Archive of Caucasian Philosophy and Theology of the New University of Georgia The New Georgian University was founded in 2015 in Poti. The university offers master’s (Christian philosophy, Christian psychology) and doctoral (Christian philosophy) educational programs. New Georgian University is the only higher educational institution in Georgia that is fully dedicated to philosophy. The major educational structural unit of the University is the faculty of humanities and social sciences, which—through the MA and PhD

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 117 educational programs—provides students with education and qualifications in the fields of philosophy and psychology. The mission of the university is the development of Christian studies in Georgia, namely Christian philosophy, Christian psychology, and political theology. This university aims to integrate religious and scientific worldviews recognizing the equality of knowledge and faith in academic work. The Archive of Caucasian Philosophy and Theology is the main scientific-structural unit of the New Georgian University. The director of the archive is professor Tengiz Iremadze. The goals and objectives of the archive include protection and development of Georgian philosophical and theological heritage, study of the theoretical heritage in the Caucasus region, re-actualization of the Georgian philosophical and theological tradition in the modern world, and the development of a new teaching and research methodology in the field of Christian philosophy and theology. The archive of Caucasian Philosophy and Theology regularly publishes academic works and periodicals, holds international and regional conferences, and carries out various types of research in the field of humanities and social sciences. The archive closely cooperates with educational and research centers of philosophy and social sciences in Georgia and abroad. The main research areas of the Archive are: Christian philosophy, Christian theology, history of Georgian philosophy, intercultural philosophy, political theology, philosophical anthropology, neurophilosophy and bioethics. Since its establishment, the archive has published about fifty books. It has held more than twenty international and local conferences, organized many public lectures, seminars, as well as two international summer schools in Christian philosophy and history of ideas. 3.4 The Institute of Philosophy of the Faculty of Humanities of Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University The Institute of Philosophy at the faculty of humanities of TSU is oriented on teaching and studying both Georgian and Western

118 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI philosophy. The Institute organizes teaching philosophy at the BA, MA and PhD levels. The Institute is oriented at the study of contemporary philosophical trends, conceptions, problems, and strategies with the special attention to the confrontation between classical and non-classical paradigms of thinking, as well as to the knowledge-based postmodern society. The main directions of research include metaphysics and epistemology, philosophy of history, moral philosophy and ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of culture, political and social philosophy, philosophy of language, and logic. The Institute of Philosophy publishes the bilingual international scientific journal Philosophical-Theological Reviewer, which has been issued since 2011 and English language international peer-reviewed scientific magazine Culture & Philosophy. 3.5 Department of Philosophy of Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University In 2006, the department of philosophy and social-political sciences was established at Batumi Shota Rustaveli State University. The professors of the department teach at the MA program in philosophy (Philosophy of Life) and at the general BA program in philosophy. The main research directions of the department include history of Georgian philosophy, philosophy of culture, political philosophy, and ethics. The department is lead by professor Lali Zakaradze. The Department of Philosophy publishes new studies and organizes academic events in various branches of philosophy.

4

Challenges and Perspective of Contemporary Georgian Philosophy

Although the declaration of independence of Georgia brought many positive results for Georgian philosophy, contemporary Georgian philosophy is facing several serious challenges. Inasmuch as philosophy has always played an important role in the formation and development of Georgian culture, it is important to conduct an even larger-scale and systematic study of the history of Georgian

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 119 philosophical thought—also for understanding of Georgian culture, Georgian thought and Georgian cultural identity in the modern world. Contemporary Georgian society faces the crisis of values that stems from the distorted consciousness of the Soviet era. In those times several generations lost their connection with—and even were alienated from—their culture. The features of Georgian culture—such as tolerance, pursuit of peace, interculturalism and creative freedom, which were traditionally provided and supported by philosophical thinking—were effectively lost. And now that we are in the process of their restoration Georgian philosophical tradition is of great importance. Thus, the challenge that contemporary Georgian philosophy faces is to help the society to understand itself, and to develop the values that would harmonize its traditional and contemporary identities. The second challenge stems from the first. Like in many other countries, the philosophy’s influence on socio-political life has decreased in Georgia. Based on the continuing values’ crisis, it is important to reestablish connection between philosophy and political processes. This does not mean that philosophers should become politicians (although we have had many philosophers among the politicians since independence). It rather means that there is a need to increase the role of philosophical debate in the formation of public opinion. Now that philosophy is mainly kept in universities, its socio-political role is unclear and ambiguous. One of the reasons for this is that so far in Georgia, in contrast to other branches of philosophy, political philosophy was lagging behind. Only a few philosophers work in this direction,1 and this is obviously not enough. Thus, the second fundamental task of contemporary Georgian philosophy is to increase its socio-political role and systematically develop political thought. The third task of Georgian philosophy is to improve the research and teaching standards. It is true, today’s philosophy in Georgia moves away from the Soviet practices, but the transitional period still goes on and the philosophical research and teaching 1

In that respect, professor Mikheil Gogatishvili and his studies of Hegel, Arendt, Strauss, Voegelin etc. should be mentioned.

120 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI standards still require serious development. In this regard, the further internationalization could be of great help for Georgian philosophy. Also, these standards would greatly improve if research would become an integral part of the teaching process. So far, despite the positive effects of the Bologna process and the progress in the Georgian education system, this issue remains a challenge. If these challenges responded and the tasks fulfilled, philosophy has great perspectives in Georgia. This perspective is based on the constant dialogue between the Georgian philosophical tradition and contemporary philosophy developed by Georgian philosophers in the centers I mentioned above. Georgian politics, society, and education would only benefit from the growth of philosophy’s influence on these sectors. Also, this would put Georgian thought on the well-deserved place on the global philosophical map.

Bibliography Alexidze, L. (2008). Ioane Petritsi and Ancient Philosophy (in Georgian). Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Press. Alexidze, L. Bergemann, L. (tr., ed.) (2008). Ioane Petrizi. Kommentar zur Elementatio theologica des Proklos. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: B. Grüner Publishing Company. Gigineishvili, L. (2007). The Platonic Theology of Ioane Petritsi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Pr Llc. Iremadze, T. (2004). Konzeptionen des Denkens im Neu-platonismus. Zur Rezeption der Proklischen Philosophie im deutschen und georgischen Mittelalter: Dietrich von Freiberg – Berthold von Moosburg – Joane Petrizi. Bochumer Studien zur Philosophie, Bd. 40. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Iremadze, T. (2006). Joane Petrizi. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, n.d., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/joanepetrizi/ (accessed: July 20, 2022). Iremadze, T. (2021). Ioane Petritsi`s Philosophy (in Georgian). Tbilisi: Pavoriti Stili.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 121 Khuroshvili, G. (2014). Jerusalem and Athens in Medieval Georgian Thought. Philosophie und Sozialtheorie, Band 1, Leben verstehen. Berlin: Logos Verlag. Makharadze, M. (ed.) (2013). History of Georgian Philosophical Thought In 4 Volumes (second edition). Tbilisi: Universali Press. Melikishvili, D. (ed.) (1999). Ioane Petritsi “Proclus`s Commentary”. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University Press. Tevzadze, G. (1992). Ioane Petritsi and Nicholas of Methone. Religion 3: 23–44. Tevzadze, G. (1993). Ioane Petritsi On the Destiny of Man. Iveria, Journal of the Georgian-European Institute 3: 17–37. Tevzadze, G. (2004). Ioane Petritsi and Albert the Great on the Difference Between Natural and Mathematical Sciences. Religion 1-2-3: 3–17. Tevzadze, G. (2006). Ioane Petritsi. Tbilisi: Nekeri.

4

Latvia

Philosophical Developments in the Context of Western Thought* Maija Kūle Latvia’s statehood was fully restored in 1991. The Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Saeima on 4 May 1990, but it took another year and a half for Latvia’s independence to be recognized by many countries around the world. It is believed that Latvia became fully independent after the withdrawal of Russian troops in 1994. The political changes and restoration of statehood in Latvia gave philosophers the opportunity to speak, think and publish freely, to participate in congresses held abroad, to lecture at universities in other Western countries and to develop joint projects. Such a clear turn towards the West would not have been possible if this Western dimension had not been present in Latvian philosophical thought throughout the 20th century; even during the Soviet period it was more or less a hidden dimension. No wonder the Baltic States were called the “Soviet West” during the Soviet era. In this chapter I summarize my experience of working at the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology for forty years, serving as its long-standing Director, and as a PhD supervisor at the University of Latvia.

Leaving Marxism: The 1990s in Latvian Philosophy The early 1990s saw Latvia’s political reorientation towards the West, democracy, and the free market. The Soviet period came to a sudden end–there was no continuation of the past, Marxism was abandoned and the ideology it imposed. Immediately, study *

The author is grateful to Daina Grosa for translating this chapter from Latvian into English.

123

124 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI courses at the Department of Philosophy of the Faculty of History and Philosophy of the University of Latvia changed significantly, now freely including the study of Western philosophy in all its various directions, the range of philosophical ideas changed, and the topics on which philosophers published books and defended dissertations changed. The term post-Soviet was generally not used, as it was too reminiscent of the former regime, which was not worthy of being compared to. The basic catchcry was we now live in a restored Latvia (not in a newly founded state), because the 1922 Constitution was restored, thus emphasizing the link with the Latvian Republic of 1918–1940. As with the orientation of the country as a whole, philosophical themes were reoriented towards the inter-war period in particular, when professional philosophy existed in Latvia, and on contemporary trends in Western philosophy. Everyone divested themselves of Marxist affiliation, because in Latvia after 1990 to be a Marxist, let alone a Leninist, was to look either like an eccentric who is behind the times or a stubborn communist who did not believe that the Soviet era was over. You could count them on the fingers of one hand (for example, the academic Valentīns Šteinbergs never renounced Marxism). But after the restoration of the Latvian state, they completely lost their power to shape science policy. Had Marxism been so weak in Latvia? To a large extent no, but what was most damaging was that after 1945, Marxism became the official ideology of the occupiers, so that it was not seen by many as a philosophy that is on a par with other movements, but as a tool of oppression. In the 1960–1980s, anecdotes were secretly told about a subject called scientific communism, even though all university students had to pass an examination in this subject, retelling the content of the Communist Party congresses as a demonstration of loyalty. There is an interesting Marxist of Latvian origin, Jānis Stienis (1899–1937), who, for a cadre of national descent, held a high position in Moscow, teaching philosophy to Stalin, and even having the audacity to contradict and criticize him. He was elected to the Central Control Commission of the Communist Party at two

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 125 Communist Party congresses. Stienis was Stalin’s personal lecturer and the author of philosophical works.1 He studied at the Red Professors’ Institute and later was a professor there. He worked for the journal Pod znamenem marksizma (Under the Banner of Marxism), on the editorial staff of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and wrote important sections for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia. He was accused of harboring Menshevik idealism and in 1932 he was expelled from the Communist Party, and punished as a member of the left opportunist movement. In 1937 he was killed in Russia during the Stalinist purges. The actions of Stienis, Abram Deborin and other philosophers under Stalin shows that Marxist philosophy was by no means a uniform dogma—it was also subject to disputes, and interpretations of philosophy. Just being in the wrong camp could cost you your life at that time, not just a critical article in a journal. Trends in philosophy under Stalin and the participation of Latvian functionaries therein is a lesser-researched subject that is worth addressing in the future in order to reveal this complex period more clearly. Best known from the Soviet period is Ernst Karpovics (1892– 1976), a professor at the Pētera Stučkas Latvian State University. His views have been studied by K. Lūsis and A. Vilks (Lusis & Vilks, 1983). Karpovics was also a graduate of the Red Professors Institute in Moscow after 1917 revolution. In Latvia, in 1960–1970, he was the most interesting interpreter of dialectical materialism of his time, who dared to invoke Hegel as a remarkable philosopher and was creative in the development of materialism. In 1966–1990, there were plans for the Philosophy Department of the Latvian State University to train Marxist propagandists, but did little to complete this task, as it turned to studying—in depth— the history of philosophy, classical ethics, aesthetics, engaging students with the works of Plato, Augustine, Descartes, Kant, Nietzsche, etc. The Department of History of Philosophy at the Latvian State University managed to be both intellectually opposed 1

See the collection of his works at: http://www.hrono.ru/biograf/bio_s/sten. html.

126 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI to Marxism (Assoc. Prof. O. Vilnīte drew the attention of the Cheka for reading and illegally reproducing the works of Orwell, Solzhenitsyn, etc.), and had a national interest in the true history and development of the Latvian nation (Prof. P. Laizāns, Assoc. Prof. V. Zariņš), and universal ethics based on universal human values (Prof. Augusts Milts). In total, over a thousand students have graduated from philosophy studies in Latvia, most of whom have appreciated the opportunity to study the works of the world’s classics and to experience the freedom of thought. Although not all graduates work in institutions directly related to their profession (graduates work in finance, media, politics, diplomacy, teaching, etc.), many say in interviews that it is their knowledge of philosophy that has given them a breadth of thought, an understanding of how to discern what is important, appreciate the good and the beautiful, and, in essence, to be calm during the world’s crises and any political maelstrom.

Philosophy Projects since 1992 If we look at the political and administrative changes in Latvia after 1990, the Latvian Science Council was established in 1992, which completely transferred the financing of science to a project system. Institutions were no longer granted any funds themselves. Many institutes of the Latvian Academy of Sciences shrank, some were dissolved. Philosophy was given a place among the humanities, alongside pedagogy and psychology. Consequently, researchers immediately tried to propose modern topics appropriate to the new political situation, both on the history of Latvian philosophy, on Western trends, and on the development of the liberal democratic order in Latvia. The topics submitted for the first competition in 1992 are representative of this shift: Dr. phil. Ella Buceniece planned a multivolume anthology “Philosophical Thought in Latvia,” research continued in phenomenological studies (Dr. habil. phil. M. Kūle, Dr. phil. V. Vēvere, etc.), Dr. phil. Svetlana Kovaļčuka focused on the study of Russian emigrant philosophers and lawyers in Latvia in the 1920s-1930s. Dr. habil. phil. Larisa Chuhina continued to

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 127 delve into the philosophy of Max Scheler. Dr. habil. phil. Jānis Vējš focused on the moral theory of analytic philosophy, moral realism in particular. Dr. habil. phil. Māra Rubene and her team covered a wide range of topics: “Western Philosophy in the 20th Century: Movements and Portraits.” Dr. phil. Vilnis Zariņš chose the topic “The Influence of the Western Enlightenment on Latvia.” The focus of some younger philosophers was on medieval philosophy and culture (translation of Gilson’s History of Medieval Philosophy). In the 1990s, Dr. phil. Igors Šuvajevs led the project “Modern Philosophical Anthropology,” Dr. phil. Solveiga Krūmiņa developed a project “The History of Christian Philosophical Ideas and Their Present Solutions in Latvia and Europe.” Agita Lūse’s project was titled “Philosophy of Christianity: Modern Trends and the Doctrine of Natural Religion.” The Centre for Ethnic Studies was founded (Dr. phil. E. Vēbers, Dr. habil. hist. L. Dribins, Dr. habil. hist. I. Apine, etc.), which was granted the project “National Processes in Latvia.” As the first project applications show, the interests are quite well balanced—there are topics concerning national and intellectual history, an analysis of the situation of religion in Latvia and Christianity, and research on several trends in Western philosophy. As with Marxism, it turned out that nobody wants to call themselves an atheist anymore. In the 1990s when the European Academy of Sciences and Arts wanted to organize a dialogue in Riga, hoping to see a debate between Christians, atheists, and agnostics, no one could be found to defend the non-Christian positions. The society had not, of course, become Christian, but at a time of religious upheaval many were not willing to argue against Christianity because within it they saw deep roots of Western civilization to which they could link themselves and the future of Latvia. Cultural migration of philosophical ideas was marked by openness, pluralism, a diversity of directions and changes of influence. During the Soviet period, philosophers’ ears had long been pricked to Western thought but now, they put in “hearing amplifiers,” so to speak, opened their eyes wide, the doors were

128 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI opened wide to foreign philosophers (if previously philosophers from Moscow, St. Petersburg and Kyiv came to Riga, now they started coming from all over the world—the USA, Germany, France, etc.). Foreign books were purchased, copied, methods adopted, sometimes angered that the end of the Soviet system was understood too simplistically by Western philosophers. It is interesting to note that in the early 1990s, American philosophers were even afraid to come to the Baltic States because they were not convinced that the restoration of the state was irreversible (for example, of 30 invited to Riga in 1991, only three came). In the 1990s, one of the most characteristic approaches was tolerance towards all kinds of philosophical movements (except communist ideology). There was much to learn, interpret, make use of: Søren Kierkegaard, Isaiah Berlin, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Edmund Husserl, Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Max Scheler, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, Sigmund Freud, Erich Fromm, Carl Gustav Jung—are just some of the philosophers who sparked lively interest. This approach can be called an approbation of ideas and values, which was much needed in the Westernization of society. There were only a few philosophers at that time who tried to develop their own independent philosophical system (Raitis Vilciņš, Kārlis Rutmanis, artist Miervaldis Polis, etc.), but their attempts remained in a narrow circle of people and did not leave any lasting impression. Society became open, just as the education system permitted openness to ideas and a diversity of influences that presented changing, transitory ideas—for example, whether democracy is allpermissive or whether there is a need for normativism. To what extent should we trust the ancient philosophers, or has their time passed and does the 20th century think differently? Sometimes political reformism in Latvia surpassed all common sense and became too distracting. When the Minister of Education had been to Denmark, everything had to be done like the Danes; when the next Minister was oriented towards Germany, the practical influence of the Germans appeared, which had taken deep roots in Latvia long before then. Advice from the USA was not far behind, and most of it was brought to Latvia by Latvians living in

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 129 exile—theologians, philosophers, writers, and political figures. Many of them wanted to rebuild the economy on capitalist foundations as quickly as possible, to restore the influence of the Lutheran (Dr. phil. Visvaldis Klīve) and Catholic (Dr. phil., theolog. Staņislavs Ladusāns) Churches and to strengthen Latvian national identity. Changes in social sciences and social as well as political philosophy were slower. All the departments of Scientific Communism, however, disappeared in an instant, and many of them became departments of Political Science. But it took time to abandon the ideological doctrine and move from the liberation from Marxist determinism to structuralism and post-structuralism, to Giddens’ understanding of society, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus, Michel Foucault’s biopower, the perspectives of Jürgen Habermas and other Western philosophers. Social philosophy in Latvia can now be seen as a modernized process that influences public opinion, which has also occurred because of translations of works by prominent Western philosophers (Hannah Arendt, Michel Foucault, Richard Rorty, Jürgen Habermas etc.).

The Beginnings and Development of Latvian Philosophical Thought in the 1920s–30s and in Exile Since the 1990s there has been a call to understand our own history and to judge national philosophy as the driving force of Latvian development. Some scholars have used the slogan: We will never write in Russian again, for our people—only in Latvian! (Dr.phil. Māris Vecvagars)

This slogan has lost its force over thirty years, however, as international science policy has compelled a shift to English and there has been a decline of national sentiment, influenced by globalization. However, the sentiment still remains that local philosophers should contribute to education and intellectual debate in Latvian. Latvian has been enshrined in law as the national language, which is now a subject of debate: how to meet the scientific requirement

130 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI to publish all major works in English in journals listed in international databases, when the national language also requires its own contribution—the development of terminology, the analysis of local problems, the study of cultural and historical regions, which is important here but much less so globally. Science policy in Latvia is focused on the fact that science, which includes philosophy, should be universal and global, but representatives of the humanities have been trying to argument during thirty years of independence that it should also be a national, Latvian language oriented policy. Scholars tend to argue that loving and understanding one’s own does not mean opposing the international view. In the history of the development of Latvian philosophy, philosophical and ethical ideas, as well as the concept of social transformation have been present since the 19th century, and much sooner in terms of cultural values, with Latvian folk songs (the oldest records of the Latvian tribal singing tradition can be found in two 13th century chronicles) being collected since the 16th century. However, this can be considered a pre-philosophical phase, just as many other peoples have an important heritage of vernacular culture. The beginnings of Latvian professional philosophy can be seen in the works of Jēkabs Osis (1860–1920), a representative of the personalism school, who was associated with the University of Tartu at the end of the 19th century. The most prominent representatives of philosophy in Latvia in the 1920–1940s are phenomenologist Teodors Celms (1893–1989, died in exile in the USA), whose views have been studied by M. Kūle, U. Vēgners, L. Muižniece, E. Buceniece), cultural philosopher Pauls Jurevičs (1891–1981, died in exile in Australia, studied by E. Freiberga, A. Balodis, R. Zeltīts), representative of energetic idealism Pauls Dāle (1889–1968, studied by E. Buceniece), writer, cultural professional, popular lecturer Zenta Mauriņa (1897–1978, died in exile in the German Federal Republic, researched by A. Cimdiņa, M. Kūle, E. Buceniece, etc.), and her spouse, hispanologist, writer, parapsychologist Konstantīns Raudive (1909–1974, died in exile in the German Federal Republic, researched by P. Zeile, N. Gills, and

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 131 others). Philosophers who wrote in Russian include philosopher of law and culture Vasilij Sinajskij (1876–1949, died in exile in Belgium, studied by S. Kovalchuk), philosopher of law Maxim Lazerson (1887–1951), and others. Also noteworthy are the teachings of phenomenologist Kurt Stavenhagen (1881–1951, died in German Federal Republic) on the nation as a community, or even much earlier—Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803) while living in Riga, had ideas about the value of Latvian folk songs, started collecting them, as well as his new ideas on the understanding of world history which were associated with the Riga period (researched by Prof. Raivis Bičevskis, 2017). Latvian philosophical thought can be seen as “absorbant like good moss,” providing the soil for everything else, including education and the economy, unlike a flower bed in which one tries to grow plants that surprise the observers of the world. The history of ideas in Latvia has been the subject of 4 volumes, The History of Ideas in Latvia (ed. E. Buceniece), as well as essays on culture, literature, and the history of ideas in English and Russian in the encyclopedic LAS publications Latvians and Latvia (4 volumes, 2014), Latvia and Latvians (2 volumes, 2018).2 What role does focusing on philosophers of the 1920s–30s and the activities of philosophers of the University of Latvia at that time play, and why are works published about them in the 21st century? This can be called the preserving of cultural memory, pride in our intellectual predecessors, a certain comparison with their ability to educate society and philosophy students. It is worth comparing the choice of topics in philosophy a hundred years ago and now to understand the general tendencies in philosophy. At that time, the influence of German and, to a lesser extent, French philosophy was first and foremost. The influence of AngloSaxon analytical philosophy was very minimal because the philosophical culture was dominated by the German language throughout history until 1944 (except for a few years during the Second World War when, due to the presence of the Soviet army, the “bourgeois” elements at University were eliminated and 2

These texts can be found at: https://dom.lndb.lv/data/obj/771777.html.

132 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Russian became the language used). Studies of Kant dominated, along with Romanticism, hermeneutics, cultural philosophy, Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Nietzsche, Oswald Spengler, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Henry Bergson, Edmund Husserl, to a lesser extent Martin Heidegger. It is noteworthy that in Latvia the German and Latvian intellectual circles were not very close—the Herder Institute in Riga invited Heidegger to lecture, but no Latvian philosophers were to be seen there (Heidegger’s Autumn in Riga, 2011). However, Latvian philosophers went to study at German universities in the 1920s and 1930s and defended their doctoral theses there. Some of their academic works were written in German (Celms 1928, 1993). Catholic theologian and philosopher, Full Member of the Pontifical Academy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, jesuit Staņislavs Ladusāns SJ. (1912–1993, his thoughts were studied by Māra Kiope), who lived in exile in Brazil for many years, once said that a nation has not reached a philosophically sufficient academic level if no one has written metaphysical volumes in its language. Indeed, among Latvians there are no metaphysical volumes in the whole history of ideas. Ladusāns developed an integral humanism in Portuguese, from which several works have been translated into Latvian.

The Study of Kant’s Philosophy as a Perennial Theme of Latvian Philosophy Kant is Latvia’s philosophical “brand”—both historically and today. Academia Petrina, founded in 1775 in Jelgava, was a shining example of the Enlightenment and an import of ideas and values into Latvia’s territory. The Hartknoch publishing house in Riga [also in Liepāja] published first editions of Kant’s Three Critiques. Kant’s brother Johann Heinrich Kant (1735–1800) lived in Latvia where he served as a priest. There is evidence that Immanuel Kant was invited to work at Academia Petrina in Jelgava, which he declined because of the remoteness and harsh climate. Latvian philosophical thought has never been typically Hegelian, not deeply saturated with abstractions and

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 133 constructions—up till the present day it has been characterized by a more cultural-philosophical style, oriented towards ethics and human development. Kant’s philosophy has been approached from many different angles, and at the end of the 19th century, Pēteris Zālīte defended his doctoral thesis in Jena University, (Germany) on the concept of freedom in Kant’s practical philosophy. During the Soviet era, Kant was recognized as a noteworthy philosopher (German classical philosophy was, after all, seen as a source of Marxism!) and in 1981 a large-scale Kant Congress was held in Riga on the occasion of the 200th anniversary of the Critique of Pure Reason, with English, Japanese, German, Russian, etc. philosophers taking part. Particularly noteworthy are the translations of Kant’s basic works from the 1980s to the present day (the greatest contribution is that of Professor Rihards Kūlis, manuscripts of pre-war translations of Kant were left as a cultural heritage by Atis Rolavs, some works of Kant were also translated by Professor Igors Šuvajevs). Over the past 30 years, Kant has been the subject of several international conferences held in Latvia, 3 doctoral dissertations (Dr. phil. Elvīra Šimfa, Dr. phil. Iveta Pirktiņa, Dr. candidate Edijs Šauers) were defended and different lecture courses delivered at the faculty. Why does Kant in particular continue to engage the Latvian environment—probably because of his philosophy of “pure forms,” which speaks of duty and its possibilities to be combined with freedom. The Protestant work ethic emerges through Kant’s philosophy. In the local culture work is interpreted as one’s existence (Latvian writer Zenta Mauriņa: I work, therefore I am). Protestantism, which in some sense is a “philosophy of work” corresponds to the Latvian mentality. In Latvia the largest religious denominations are Lutheranism, Catholicism, Orthodox Christianity, as well as the ethnoreligious movement—the Old Believers, has long been rooted here. Namely Lutheranism before the World War II was the dominant national religion because 55 % of the population belong to this confession (data from 1935). While Latvian philosophy at the beginning of the 20th century was dominated by the influence of Romanticism, impact from the Western philosophy of culture and life, and the classical ethics of

134 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI duty were valid for a long time yet at the beginning of the 21st century, we can see the consequences of the acquisition of Western post-structuralist philosophies, and post-modern authors: Kant is made “blacker” (pure Kant—dirtier in a figurative sense, as described by new Dr. phil. holder Elvīra Šimfa), universal ethics is split/divided, made a situational, performative, gendered point of view; the mind is embodied. One of the authors of the senior generation gave her monograph the apt title “Reason is not an illusion” (Buceniece 1999), with a hint—let us not give up the classical doctrine of rationality too easily. This is the atmosphere in which philosophy in Latvia is currently operating—between cultural, religious, consciousness research and social immediacy. The history of ideas in Latvia in recent centuries has been characterized by processes of liberation, emancipation and decolonization, de-occupation, the recognition of freedom as a value and the struggle for the individualization of the person including his or her growth. Since 2010–2022 during which time a pluralism of trends in philosophy has been gaining ground, a new generation has started to think more about social justice than about universal ethics or moral normativity. It is noteworthy that theologians have been taking part in the philosophical process: Catholic Archbishop Zbigņevs Stankevičs has published a book on Bernhard Welte (1906–1983), a student of Heidegger, with an appeal for spiritual growth. Karl Rahner has been translated (translated by R. Kūlis), papal encyclicals are being published and questions about the modern family, the role of women in society, migration, ethics, etc. are being discussed. Philosophers and theologians often sit side by side in social forums discussing contemporary European values. If in the 1990s the public was more familiar with freely expressed thoughts on ethics, social responsibility in the sermons of Lutheran pastors (Juris Rubenis, Modris Plāte, etc.), since the 2010s there has been an increased attention on philosophical judgments, festive speeches, publications based on Catholicism. The fact that since 1993, Latvia has been personally visited by two Popes—John Paul II in 1993 particularly praised the “phenomenological school” developed in Latvia, which puts the

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 135 questions of life at the center, and the visit of Pope Francis to Latvia in 2018—both played a role. It cannot be said that in general most secular philosophy in Latvia has become religious as a result, but the arrival of persons such as the popes always brings up contemporary ethical themes.

Influencers Since the 1970s, a few persons should be mentioned who, while working outside Latvia, have influenced philosophical thought here. One of these was Merab Mamardašvili (1930–1990), a Georgian-born, suggestive thinker who writes in Russian. He was known throughout the Soviet Union as a cultural dissident (Kūle 2021), rather than as a political oppositionist. When Merab gave lectures in Riga, the halls were packed. The philosopher did not create a strong philosophical system, but expressed deep feelings, states of thought, elaborated metaphorical and symbolic language as a “freedom speech.” For some of those who listened to him this stayed in their mind for life—philosophy as a state of thought, affirmation of values. He always said: The devil plays with us if we do not think accurately.

Accurately—it means to use a truthful language without Soviet ideological lies. Mamardašvili’s collection of writings, with the title in Latvian The Joy of Thinking (1993), has been translated and used as a text-book for a new approach in philosophy. The legends of Mamardašvili's living philosophy still circulate among the middle and older generations, including in artists’ circles. He had followers all over the Soviet Union—in Ukraine, Belorussia, Georgia, Lithuania, and in the Russian cities as Moscow, St. Peterburg (Leningrad), Perm’, Novosibirsk etc. Philosophy, in his view, is an infinite form of culture. It contains within itself the moments, the grains of the whole, which may appear through concepts, but this depends on the selfconstitution of philosophy. It gave an important impetus for the 1980s generation to yearn to reach its self-development, rather than being subject to obligatory Marxism. Mamardašvili’s philosophy

136 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI was very international, it was a philosophy of freedom at the right time and in the right place, in the stagnant USSR of those decades. In Latvia from 2010–2015, PhD students in philosophy revived the Mamardašvili Readings through publications on disc. However, the youngest generation struggles to understand the Mamardašvili phenomenon, having already enjoyed a hefty breath of freedom. Rather, the search is for what progressive trends to follow, not for how to become free from ideologies. Another kind of influence in 1970-2010 came from the Moscow Institute of Philosophy, Professor Nelly Motrošylova, who was known throughout the USSR and also in Germany as an expert on Kant, Hegel, and Husserl. She brought her PhD students to Riga (Viktor Molchanov, one of the leading phenomenologists in Russia). Around the 1980s, phenomenological thought in Latvia was shaped by a turn towards ontology, which can be considered very important because it opened the gates to understanding Heidegger’s fundamental ontology, Gadamer’s ontology of language, Husserl’s regional ontologies, Conrad-Martius ontology of social reality, etc. This understanding of reducing epistemology and developing ontology, which seems in today’s context as selfevident, has accompanied philosophical thought in Latvia even up to the 2000s.

Phenomenology in Latvia The study of phenomenology has been taking place in Latvia for fifty years (1970–2022), gradually moving from Husserl’s interpretation to his followers: Maurice Merleau-Ponty (Phenomenology of Perception translated by philosopher Rinalds Zembahs), Jean Luc Marion (dissertation and monograph by Māra Grīnfelde), Edith Stein, etc. Lāsma Pirktiņa, who studied in Germany, is also working on the interpretation of Jean Luc Marion’s philosophy and problems of truth. Professor Māra Rubene is studying French phenomenology, aesthetics of Frankfurt school and the views of Jean Luc Nancy. Phenomenology in Latvia gained an international resonance in 1990 with the 25th International Conference “Reason, Life,

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 137 Culture,” organized by the World Phenomenology Institute, President A.-T. Tymieniecka, together with the Latvian Academy of Sciences, and the subsequent 27th International Conference in Jūrmala in 1991 and the volume Analecta Husserliana, vol. 39, Phenomenology in the Baltics (1993). A volume on ecophenomenology in the situation of the pandemic (edited by Maija Kūle and Daniela Verducci) will be published in 2022 by Springer, in collaboration with philosophers from Lithuania, the USA, Hungary and Georgia. In 2022, the publisher Morcelliana in Rome plans to launch a book in Italian by Latvian philosophers on the Phenomenology of Life and its developer A.-T. Tymieniecka, with introductions by Prof. Francesco Alfieri and Prof. Daniela Verducci. Summing up, working in the field of phenomenology has resulted in around 50 publications by Latvian philosophers in the Analecta Husserliana series (Kluwer Academic Publishers, later Springer) on structures of consciousness, historicity, space, time, intersubjectivity, rhythm, self-understanding, teleology, giving the opportunity to also highlight to an international audience the Latvian contribution to and inclusion in international movements of the first half of the 20th century (until 1940). Reference is made to the “Riga School of Phenomenology”, for which recognition was awarded by the Senate of the University of Latvia in 2019 to Prof. Maija Kūle as founder and leader of the school.3 The tradition of phenomenology of religion has also been studied in Latvia by the late Nikandrs Gills, Solveiga KrūmiņaKoņkova, Māra Grīnfelde, etc. One of the first summarizing articles is Nikandrs Gills’ Phenomenology of Religion in the 1920–30s in the Context of Religious Research in Latvia (Gills 1995). There is still much 3

I have described the phenomenological movement in Latvia in detail, see the Encyclopedia of Phenomenology published by Kluwer Acad. Publishers, edited by Lester Embree, in “Phenomenologie in the USSR” and “One Hundred Years of Phenomenology in Latvia: 1920–2020” in Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology 10(1), 2021.The history of phenomenology in Latvia is also looked at by Ella Buceniece in “Teodors Celms, Kurt Stavenhagen and Phenomenology in Latvia” in the encyclopedia Phenomenology Worldwide. Foundations, Expanding Dynamics, Life-Engagements: A Guide for Research and Study edited by AnnaTeresa Tymieniecka (2002).

138 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI to be studied, looked at on this topic, and described internationally, as it outlines the general spiritual climate of Latvia in those years. Phenomenology teaches reverence for the world, but it does not mean a submissive bowing of the head before everything that happens, but analysis through an intuitive approach—a descriptive approach that maintains a holistic scope. Among the philosophers who influenced Latvian thought is the German philosopher Wilhelm Schmid. He came to Riga in the 1990s and found parallels with his own thoughts on the existence of a culture of space (this is how Schmid interpreted the Latvian attachment to nature and the countryside as opposed to the urbanized culture of time). Schmid’s philosophy of life art (Philosophie der Lebenskunst), developed under Foucault’s influence, became popular in Latvia in the 2000s (Šmids 2012). It was developed by Igors Šuvajevs in his books Preludes, Philosophy as Life Art, The Fates of Values, and others.

Who is Philosophy Learnt from in Latvia? Philosophy was introduced into the history of world culture and more than 20 books were published by Andris Rubenis (1951–2017), professor at the Latvian Academy of Arts. His writing style is more oriented towards the educational system, because during his lifetime he managed to start publishing books in the Latvian language from the very wide themes of world mythology, proceeded to the Ancient Greek culture, Ancient Romans, Middle Ages, etc., up to the 20th century, and then made the full circle of history with new books that dealt in depth with the fate of philosophy at these historical stages. Rubenis has two books on theoretical and practical ethics, which are very useful as teaching tools. Textbooks on ethics were written by Prof. Skaidrīte Lasmane, anthologies of texts and short works on the history of philosophy were written collectively (compiled by Prof. Juris Rozenvalds), and a textbook on practical and theoretical philosophy by Dr. phil. Ineta Kivle. Prof. Visvaldis Klīve, a theologian and philosopher who returned to Latvia from the USA, has written three popular textbooks on philosophy, ethics and religion: The Ways of Wisdom,

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 139 The Ways of Action, The Ways of Faith, which show how complicated things can be presented in a language that is understandable to all. One of the most popular textbooks is Philosophy by Maija Kūle and Rihards Kūlis (repeatedly reprinted since 1995 in a total of 17400 copies, also translated into Russian), which is composed of two parts: first the historical horizontal view through the ages, then the view through problems and dilemmas. Several foreign textbooks on ethics and philosophy have been translated into Latvian, so that philosophy has been made available to the general public since the 1990s. In the 2000s, publisher Zvaigzne ABC published a series of lectures on philosophy, including Assoc. Professor Elga Freiberga’s work on aesthetics, Assoc. Prof. Jelena Celm’s and Ilzes Fedotova’s lectures on aesthetics, Prof. Augusts Milts’ lectures on ethics, Prof. Pēteris Laķis’ introduction to sociology, etc. Study books have been published also by Prof. Igors Šuvajevs and others. Another question—as in many post-Soviet countries—is the attitude of the ruling powers to the need for philosophy and ethics: they are mostly “blocking their ears,” asking to lend a hand, to write party programs or produce strategy essays at the civil servant level, which call for the need of philosophy to be practically useful. There is no system in Latvia that all universities should teach philosophy subjects. Nor are these subjects taught in secondary schools and gymnasiums [this is optional if there is a demand]. That is why philosophical knowledge is diminishing, and is being replaced by mysticism, magic, life-guidance courses, coaching courses, etc.

Where Can Philosophy Be Enjoyed in Latvia? In Latvia, academic philosophy and journalistic philosophical reflections and interviews are somewhat separated, both in terms of different styles and target audiences. Academic essays require a scholarly style and allow for more complexity, while philosophy for all is published in magazines, portals, social media, reflected in art performances. Since the 1990s, the popular magazine Rīgas laiks (in Latvian and Russian) whose philosophical leader has been Uldis

140 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Tīrons, and the main interviewer—Agris Redovičs, who has managed to collect a considerable number of interviews with philosophers from around the world. A popular portal is Satori, which has a post-modern and postliberal approach with the orientation mainly to literature. Philosophical publications have been joined in recent years by two portals, Punctummagazine, with a post-structuralist orientation, and Telos, a Christian conservative portal, both publishing literary works and philosophical essays, but not getting involved in political processes. Essays, “round tables”, chat, interviews, the cultivation of literary expression is the way of contemporary youth philosophy, who tend to avoid large monographs, but rather post on portals, on Twitter and Facebook groups. Philosophy students in their twenties are trying their hand at creating their own magazine, Tvērums, which, although it doesn’t have a large audience, tries to show a different face, to touch on topics that have not yet been discussed. It is worth noting that all philosophical portals in Latvia are closely intertwined with literature, and it seems that without its support it would be difficult to fill the content, because philosophy for all strives to be eloquent and enjoyable from a literary perspective.

The “Young Ones” in Philosophy In recent years, phenomena that have not been seen since the 1990s have begun to appear on the horizon: left radicalism, new anarchists, derivations of neoliberalism in economic and social theory, neo-colonialist methodology, gender studies together with queer studies, fans of Žižekian philosophy appear on the horizon, etc. A new generation of millennials has come on the scene, who are more into acute sensations, corporeality, situational rather than deontological ethics than Kantian eternal peace or Husserlian observation. It is likely that in the 2020s Latvian philosophy will move even further in the direction of priorities that are determined by political orientation—to always be at the forefront of current affairs, to contribute to the economy, to be beside or serve STEM

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 141 industries, rather than romantically delving into the frequencies of human feelings and problems of existence. It is likely that there will be a return to “forgotten Marxism” as a tool for transforming society, in the form of “velvet Marxism” to ward off accusations of Marxism-Leninism, accused of communist crimes. For the older generation, which experienced the communist regime’s negative attitude towards free thought, it seems incomprehensible how millennials can, in their political naivety, spurred in good faith, aspire to this once again under the slogan “progressives,” claiming that this is the path to liberation and happiness. Russia’s war in Ukraine is sparking discussions about the Soviet era, imperialism, Russian values, philosophy of the “silver age” and literature. Young philosophers become interested in the philosophy of war, and the meaning of this military expansion, ethics of war, international law etc. The theme of war is combined with the criticism of Western countries that their societies are stuck in a life-form of consumer society. Courses in critical thinking that are currently available to philosophers in universities are oriented primarily towards the art of elementary logic and truthful reasoning, but the warnings coming from a century-old history about the evils of the communist regime have not been understood clearly—that history, unfortunately, for the youngest generation belongs to “ancient times”. This creates a risky situation of the possibility of distraction from the development of a liberal democratic state course in favor of political change to more radical values. Feminism took root in the 1990s as a modern movement, spreading to sociology, political science, literary studies, aesthetics, philosophy of embodiment, with several works and translations coming out in the field of philosophical feminism. Gender studies as an independent subject did not truly develop in Latvia, but it was always present in the feminist wave, which is not about to recede, because it hopes for European ideological support. Among the philosophers who have contributed to the philosophical analysis of feminism and aesthetics are Milda Palēviča (1889–1972, she wrote a history of aesthetics in Latvia), Ieva Lapinska’s monograph Identity and Otherness and Jana Kukaine’s monograph Lovely Mothers.

142 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Woman. Body. Subjectivity. Translations were made of two books by Austrian feminist philosopher Herta Nagl-Docekal—What is Feminist Philosophy? and Hegel on Love. University of Latvia Center “Feministica lettica” has prepared (on the basis of a joint project with the University of Oslo) and published a dictionary “Kultūras feminisms” (Cultural feminism) which looks at the main feminist movements and philosophical concepts. If in the 1990s feminism was more sociological, in demographic studies, in the past few decades its face is associated more with literary criticism, several issues were published of the magazine Feministica lettica, managing editor Prof. Ausma Cimdiņa.

Institutions In Latvia since 1981, philosophy has co-existed with law at the Institute of Philosophy and Law of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. The institute changed its name in 1991 and became the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Latvian Academy of Sciences. In many post-Soviet countries, philosophers swiftly separated from sociologists, but in Latvia they remained together. They were united by common educational programs in the University of Latvia, as all sociologists previously had to undertake serious philosophy studies, even in Soviet-era diplomas there was a joint title—philosopher, sociologist. The Institute of Philosophy and Sociology conducts research on values, identities, collection and compilation of life stories, research on migration processes (Dr. sc. Soc. Inta Mieriņa, Dr. sc. Soc. Ilze Koroļeva), as well as an analysis of the religious situation, headed by Dr. phil. Solveiga Krūmiņa-Koņkova. The Institute publishes a journal—Religious-Philosophical Writings, which meets academic requirements, and generates the research required by scholars to be included in the Scopus database. Philosophy students are enrolled at the University of Latvia in the Faculty of History and Philosophy, in Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral programs. All programs are conducted in Latvian with guest professors in English. The Philosophy Department (headed

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 143 by Prof. Raivis Bičevskis) has chosen biophilosophy and LatvianGerman cultural relations during the Enlightenment and the Romantic period as its current research topic now. Courses are taught at smaller philosophy departments at Riga Stradiņš University, which teaches bioethics, at the Latvian Academy of Culture, Daugavpils University, etc. The number of philosophers with PhDs who are actively publishing in 2020 is no more than 40, and the younger generation is obtaining PhDs in philosophy at a slower pace, around 1-2 every couple of years, suggesting that the field is not disappearing, but not flourishing in numbers either.

Translations as a Transfer of Philosophical Ideas In the 1980s, an important series of translations titled Avots (Spring) was published—for every intelligent Latvian this series should have taken pride of place - at that time these books still counted as valuable, although not everyone read them all—Aristotle, Montaigne, Hume, Locke, Kant, Herder, Feuerbach, a small fragment of Hegel’s work was published, etc. At that time books were edifying literature. In the 1990s, a translation series was supported by the Soros Foundation’s international program “Expenditure for Democracy” and published about 20 books in the series Man and Society, which has become the basis for philosophical studies. Among the most active translators from German are philosophers Prof. Rihards Kūlis, Prof. Igors Šuvajevs, Prof. Raivis Bičevskis, including the works of complicated “Magus of the North” Hamann, modernthinking Gadamer, progressive Habermas, classical Max Weber, conceptually difficult Husserl, etc. One major breakthrough was the success of Jurģis Liepnieks and Dr. phil. Arnis Rītups at the European Cultural Foundation with a project for translation of philosophy classics plus commentary, including Augustine, Descartes, Hume, Austin, etc., but this has ended with no continuation. One series of translations devoted to aesthetics is being maintained by the Latvian Centre for

144 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Contemporary Art, including mainly the Frankfurt School authors of critical philosophy, the post-structuralists, G. Agamben, etc. A phenomenon of the 1990s—the launching of new journals is noteworthy, among these are literature and philosophy journals. In 1992, one of Latvia’s most respected poets, Leons Briedis, privately established the magazine Grāmata (Book), which was later transformed into the monthly magazine Kentaurs XXI, emphasizing the link between philosophy and literature. The publisher of the journal, Briedis (his whole family worked for him), published some 50 outstanding issues, each devoted to a specific theme—truth and lies, the Other, the treatment of animals, time, space, metaphors, etc.—in which he included articles by local philosophers as well as translations from a wide range of languages to suit the length required for a magazine, including translations from German, French, Spanish, English, Romanian, etc. Regarding English translations of Latvian philosophy books— Prof. Jānis Vējš, together with his colleague Assoc. Prof. Jānis Taurens, translated into Latvian Wittgenstein’s two main works Logical-Philosophical Treatise (2006) and Philosophical Investigations (1997). Immediately, students started showing an interest in becoming Wittgensteinians. Vējš continued his translating with J. Austin’s How to Do Things with Words (2011), essays on ethics by Iris Murdoch, Richard Rorty’s Chance, Irony, Solidarity was translated from English into Latvian, bringing neo-pragmatic thinking closer to the Latvian intellectual milieu. Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, The Life of the Mind I-II, and other books are very useful for everyone. In the 2020s, Arendt has become one of the figures whose thought is receiving more and more attention and special study courses are being taught at the UL (E. Šimfa). The Isaiah Berlin Foundation and Centre have been established in Riga, and every year a lecture is given by a prominent international lecturer. This idea is similar to the tendency throughout Europe to find a figure of philosophical identification in one’s own country—in Lithuania it is Lithuanian-born Emanuel Levinas. In Latvia, there are mixed feelings about Berlin—the socalled liberal youth portal Satori adores him, while the more

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 145 conservative Telos criticizes him for an unacceptable understanding of liberalism. Since the 2020s, a stricter separation of philosophical positions is beginning to emerge—in terms of content, not only in terms of membership of the Big Name groups (e.g. the Kierkegaardians, Heideggerians, Husserlians, lovers of ancient philosophy, etc.), because politics emerges among the ideological positions, which in Latvia is not a politics of clear affiliation, because the left talks like the right, while the right turns into “revolutionaries” in its categorism, while the centrists focus on the economy and social affairs, not to mention spiritual states. Latvia still has very little of the following—social philosophy, discussions of social democratic themes, models of a future society—these are mostly made by former physicists and financiers, and the images they create still don’t materialize. Prognostication is not the strongest point of Latvian theoreticians. Latvians are largely quiet, Nordic people, without expressive manifestations. When the International Book Fair was held in London in 2018, Latvians went there with the logo #iamintrovert—I am an introvert!, which is psychologically in line with the national mentality, as well as with solutions to most philosophical themes in Latvia today. If philosophical approaches are associated with Latvian themes (state research tenders for “Letonika” or “Latvian Studies” have been announced several times), then most of them in the 2000s–2020s have been studies on the history of ideas, the migration of ideas, the history of Latvian philosophy. There has been a renewed interest in Spanish in Latvia, Ortega y Gasset’s Mass Uprising is being translated, there are thoughts about a few others ... Ideas surface again about discussions on European decadence, because decadence in culture has recently become intertwined with aggressiveness in politics. As a reaction to the devaluation of truth, Dr. phil Māris Kūlis published a monograph “Finis veritatis?” (2021). Philosophical thought in Latvia thus currently ranges from classical rationalism to romanticism and intuitivism, largely bypassing socio-political issues. It is suggested that the pure mind (a reference to Kant) so loved by philosophers should give way to the

146 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI vital mind. Often, references to syncretism in Christianity, to faith, are added to the vital mind, combining it with paganism and creating various variants of pantheism, which resonate very well with the aesthetically idealized green course of the new ideology of the European Union. The best Latvian political philosopher, Assoc. Prof. Ivars Ijabs, after publishing two books on the roots of democracy and today, has become a Member of the European Parliament and tries to explain political matters to the wide audience there. Political philosophy with an influential power currently does not exist in Latvia—there are political reminiscences, not philosophical schools. The aim of the country is dedicated to the creation of “political nation” with a course to deepen European values, national self-confidence, justice, tolerance and live in peace and prosperity.

Bibliography Arendt, H. (2000–2001). Prāta dzīve. I, II [from Lat.: The Life of the Mind]. Riga: Intelekts. Arendt, H. (2000). Totalitārisma izcelsme [from Lat.: The Origins of Totalitarianism]. Riga: Elpa. Austin, J. L. (2011). Kā ar vārdiem darīt lietas? [from Lat.: How to do Things with Words?] Translated by John Nameisis Vējš. Riga: Liepnieks & Rītups. Balodis, A. (2015). Nepabeigtā pagātne. Pētījums par Anrī Bergsona filozofiju [from Lat.: The Unfinished Past. A Study of the Philosophy of Henri Bergson]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Bičevskis, R. (2011). Heidegera Rīgas rudens [from Lat.: Heidegger’s Riga Autumn]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Bičevskis, R. (2017), (editor). Vienotība un atšķirība: Johana Gotfrīda Herdera filozofija [from Lat.: Unity and Difference: Philosophy of Johann Gottfried Herder]. Riga. Buceniece, E. (2005). Ideju vēsture Latvijā. I–II. 1. Sējums, Jaunā strāva–20. gadsimta sākums [from Lat.: History of Ideas in Latvia. I-II. Volume 1, New Current - Beginning of the 20th Century]. Riga: RaKa. Buceniece, E. (ed.). (1995). Ideju vēsture Latvijā: no pirmsākumiem līdz XIX gs. 90. gadiem: antolog̓ija, 1. sējums [from Lat.: The History of Ideas in Latvia. An Anthology, Volume 1.] Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 147 Buceniece, E. (1999). Saprāts nav ilūzija. Rietumu filozofija modernisma situācijā. [from Lat.: Reason is no Illusion. Western Philosophy in the Situation of Modernism]. Riga: Neputns. Buceniece, E. (2002). Teodors Celms, Kurt Stavenhagen and Phenomenology in Latvia. In Tymieniecka, Anna-Teresa. (ed.). Phenomenology Worldwide. Foundations, Expanding Dynamics, LifeEngagements: A Guide for Research and Study. Stuttgart: Kluwer, 312–316. Buceniece, E. (2013). Pauls Dāle: Dievs un “filozofa lieta” [from Lat.: God and the Case of the “Philosopher”]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Celma, J., Fedotova, I. (2000). Estētisko ideju vēsture Eiropā. Lekciju kurss [from Lat.: History of Aesthetic Ideas in Europe. Course of Lectures]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Celms, T. (1928, 1993). Der phänomenologische Idealismus Husserls und andere Schriften 1928 - 1943: Herausgegeben von Juris Rozenvalds (Philosophie und Geschichte der Wissenschaften) (German Edition) [from German: Husserl’s Phenomenological Idealism and Other Writings 1928–1943: Edited by Juris Rozenvalds (Philosophy and History of Science) (German Edition)]. Muenster: Peter Lang. Chuhina, L. (1996). Chelovek v religioznoi filosofii [from Rus.: Man in Religious Philosophy]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Chuhina, L. (1980, 1991). Chelovek i ego cennostnyj mir v religioznoi filosofii [from Rus.: Man and the World of his Values in Religious Philosophy]. Riga: Zinatne. Cimdiņa, A., Šroma, N. (2017). Kultūras feminisms [from Lat.: Cultural feminism]. Riga: Zinatne. Feministica lettica. (1999–) Feministica lettica. Journal published by the University of Latvia. Editor-in-chief Ausma Cimdina. Freiberga, E. (2000). Estētika. Mūsdienu estētikas skices [from Lat.: Aesthetics. Sketches of Contemporary Aesthetics]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Freiberga, E. (2007). Mental Experience and Creativity. In Tymieniecka A.T. (ed.). Analecta Husserliana. Vol. XCIII. Phenomenology of Life - from Animal Soul to the Human Mind. Book 1. In the Search of Experience. Dordrecht: Springer, 335–349. Freiberga, E. (2017). Starp reālo un imagināro [from Lat.: Between the Real and the Imaginary]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Gills, N. (1995). Reliģijas fenomenoloģija 20.-30. gados reliģiju pētniecības kontekstā Latvijā. Laicīgais un mūžīgais [from Lat.: Phenomenology of Religion in the 1920s-1930s in the Context of Religious Research in Latvia. The Secular and the Eternal]. Riga: Lielvārds.

148 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Grīnfelde, M. (2016). Neredzamā pieredze: Žana Lika Mariona dotības fenomenoloģija [from Lat.: The Invisible Experience: Phenomenology of Givenness in Jean-Luc Marion’s philosophy]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Heidegger, M. (2011). Heidegera Rīgas rudens: Martins Heidegers Rīgā. Sastādītājs, zinātniskais redaktors R. Bičevskis [from Lat.: Heidegger’s Riga Autumn: Martin Heidegger in Riga]. Compiler, scientific editor R. Bičevskis. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Ijabs, I. (2018). Atgūtā demokrātija Nr.2: politiskā publicistika 2012–2018. [from Lat.: Democracy restored, No. 2]. Riga: Zinatne. Ijabs, I. (2012). Atgūtā demokrātija: politiskā publicistika, 2005-2012. [from Lat.: Democracy restored]. Riga: Zinatne. Jurevičs, P. (1930). Le problème de la connaissance dans la philosophie de Bergson [from Fr.: The Problem of Knowledge in Bergson’s Philosophy]. Paris, doctoral thesis. Jurevičs, P. (1949). Henri Bergson: Eine Einführung in seine Philosophie [from Lat.: Henri Bergson: An Introduction to his Philosophy]. Freiburg. Kant, I. (1988). Praktiskā prāta kritika [from German.: The Critique of Practical Reason], translated by Rihards Kūlis. Riga: Zvaigzne, Riga, second version (2011). Rīga: Zinātne. Kant, I. (2000). Spriestspējas kritika [from Lat.: Critique of Reasoning], translated by Rihards Kūlis. Rīga: Zvaigzne ABC. Kant, I. (2005). Kas ir Apgaismība? [from Lat.: What is Enlightenment?], translated by Igors Šuvajevs. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Kant, I. (2011). Tīrā prāta kritika [from Lat.: Critique of Pure Reason], translated by Rihards Kūlis. Rīga: Zinātne. Kant, I. (2020). Tikumu metafizikas pamatojums [from Lat.: Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals], translated by Rihards Kūlis. Riga: Zinātne. Kaša, R., Mieriņa, I. (eds.). (2019). The Emigrant Communities of Latvia. National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics. Springer, book 2014, open access 2019. Kentaurs XXI. (1992–2010). Kentaurs XXI. Editor-in-Chief Leons Briedis. Riga: Minerva. Kiope, M. (2009). Patiesība un valoda: Patiesības pieredzes iespējamība valodiskumā [from Lat.: Truth and Language: The Possibility of the Experience of Truth in Lingvicity]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kivle, I. (2009). Skaņas filosofija [from Lat.: The Philosophy of Sound]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 149 Kivle, I. (2011). Filosofija: teorētiska un praktiska mācība [from Lat.: Philosophy: Theoretical and Practical Lessons]. Riga. Klīve, V. (1995). Ticības ceļos [from Lat.: Roads to Faith]. Riga: Zinātne. Klīve, V. (1996). Gudrības ceļos [from Lat.: Roads to Wisdom]. Riga: Zinātne. Klīve, V. (1998). Rīcības ceļos [from Lat.: Roads to Action]. Riga: Zinātne. Kovalchuk, S. (ed.). (2014). Intelektuālās identitātes un vērtības. Filosofei Larisai Čuhinai–100 [from Lat.: Intellectual Identities and Values. Philosopher Larisa Chuhina–turns 100]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kukaine, J. (2016). Daiļās mātes. Sieviete. Ķermenis. Subjektivitāte [from Lat.: Beautiful Mothers. Woman. Body. Subjectivity]. Riga. Kūle, M., (1997). Phenomenologie in the USSR. Encyclopedia of Phenomenology. Contributions to Phenomenology (In Cooperation with the Center for Advanced Research in Phenomenology). Embree, L., Edie, J.M., Ihde, D., Kockelmans, J. J., Schrag C. O. et al. (eds). Dordrecht: Springer. Kūle, M., Muižniece, L., Vēgners, U. (2009). Teodors Celms: fenomenoloģiskie meklējumi [from Lat.: Teodors Celms: The Phenomenological Investigations]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kūle, M. (2002). Phenomenology and Culture. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kūle, M. (2006). Eirodzīve: formas, principi, izjūtas [from Lat.: Eurolife: Forms, Principles, Feelings]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kūle, M. (2016). Jābūtības vārdi: etīdes par zināšanām un vērtībām mūsdienu Latvijā [from Lat.: Words of Moral Obligation: Études on Knowledge and Values in Contemporary Latvia]. Rīga: Zinātne. Kūle, M. (2021). Phenomenology and Culture: Collaboration between Georgian and Latvian Philosophers. Philosophical–Theological Review 11: 21–38. Kūle, M. (2021a). One Hundred Years of Phenomenology in Latvia: 1920– 2020. Horizon. Studies in Phenomenology 10(1): 15–44. Kūlis, M. (2018). Terorisma krustugunīs. Islāma valsts [from Lat.: In the Crossfire of Terrorism. Islamic State]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Kūlis, M. (2021). Finis veritatis? Par patiesību un meliem [from Lat.: Finis veritatis? On Truth and Lies.] Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Laķis, P. (2002). Lekciju kurss. Socioloģija. Ievads socioloģijā [from Lat.: Lecture course. Sociology. Introduction to Sociology]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.

150 GIORGI KHUROSHVILI Lapinska, I. (2012) Identitāte un citādība [from Lat.: Identity and Otherness]. Riga: LU Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Lasmane, S., Milts, A., Rubenis, A. (1994). Etika: (voprosy, reshenija, vyvody): posobie dlja uchitelej [from Lat.: Ethics: Questions, Solutions, Conclusions. A Study Aid]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Lūsis, K., Vilks, A. (1983). Ernsts Karpovics (revolucionārs un filozofs) [from Lat.: Ernsts Karpovics (Revolutionary and Philosopher)]. Riga: Avots. Mamardašvili, M. (1994). Domātprieks [from Lat.: The Joy of Thinking]. Compiled and afterword by Ansis Zunde. Riga: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. Milts, A. (2000). Ētika: personības un sabiedrības ētika: lekciju kurss [from Lat.: Ethics: Personal and Social Ethics: A Series of Lectures]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Motrošylova, N. (2013). Martin Heidegger i Hannah Arendt: bytie–vremja– ljubov’ [from Rus.: Martin Heidegger and Hannah Arendt: being– time–love]. Moscow: Akademicheskij proekt. Murdoch, I. (2021). Airisas Mērdokas kultūrfilosofiskās esejas [from Lat.: Cultural Philosophical Essays by Iris Murdoch]. Translated by J. Vējš. Riga: LU Akademiskais apgads. Nagl-Docekal, H. (2012). Kas ir feministiskā filosofija? [from Lat.: What is Feminist Philosophy?]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Nagl-Docekal, H. (2015). Hēgelis par mīlestību [from Lat.: Hegel on Love]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Palēviča, M. (2021). Dienasgrāmatas: 1911–1972 [from Lat.: Diaries: 1911– 1972]. Riga: Neputns. Pirktina, L. (2019). Das Ereignis. Martin Heidegger, Emmanuel Levinas, JeanLuc Marion [from Lat.: The Event. Martin Heidegger, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Marion]. Freiburg, München: Verlag Karl Alber. Problemy ontologii. (1988). Problemy ontologii v sovremennoi burzhuaznoj filosofii [from Lat.: Problems of Ontology in Modern Bourgeois Philosophy]. Riga: Zinatne. Rorty, R. (1999). Nejaušība, ironija, solidaritāte [from Lat.: Contingency, Irony, Solidarity], translated by Velga Vēvere. Riga: Pētergailis. Rožkalne, A. (ed.). (2019). Latvija: kultūru migrācija [from Lat.: Latvia: Cultural Migration]. Riga: LU apgāds. Rubene, M. (2010). Aisthēsis. Mimēsis. Theōria. Riga: author’s edition. Rubene, M. (2021). Da Capo. Riga: Al secco, author’s edition. Rubenis, A. (1996). Ētika XX gadsimtā. Praktiskā ētika [from Lat.: Ethics in the XX Century. Practical Ethics]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC.

PHILOSOPHY IN INDEPENDENT GEORGIA 151 Rubenis, A. (1997). Ētika XX gadsimtā. Teorētiskā ētika [from Lat.: Ethics in the XX Century. Theoretical Ethics]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Šimfa, E. (2022). Kanta antropoloģija [from Lat.: Kant’s Anthropology]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Šmids, V. (2012). Ievads dzīvesmākslā [from Lat.: Introduction to the Art of Life.] Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Stankevičs, Z. (2022). Qou vadis, Rietumu pasaule? [from Lat.: Qou vadis, Western World?]. Riga: Zinātne. Stradiņš, J. (ed.). (2014). Latvieši un Latvija [from Lat.: Latvians and Latvia], 4 vols. Rīga: Latvian Academy of Sciences. Stradiņš, J. (ed.). (2018). Latvia and Latvians, 2 vols. Akadēmisko rakstu krājums. [from Lat.: Collection of Academic Articles]. Riga: Latvian Academy of Sciences (English version: https://dom.lndb.lv/ data/obj/771775.html; Latvian version: https://dom.lndb.lv/data/ obj/771497.html) (accessed June 12, 2022). Šuvajevs, I. (2007). Filosofija kā dzīvesmāksla [from Lat.: Philosophy as an Art of Life]. Riga: Zvaigzne ABC. Šuvajevs, I. (2019). Rūpēs par dvēseli: vērtību likteņi [from Lat.: Looking after the Soul: The Fate of Values]. Riga: Zinātne. Tymieniecka, A.-T. (ed). (1993). Analecta Husserliana. The Yearbook of Phenomenological Research. Reason, Life, Culture I: Phenomenology in the Baltics. Vol. 39. Dordrecht: Kluwer Acad. Publishers. Vēgners, U. (2016). Tagad. Laika pieredzes fenomenoloģija [from Lat.: Now. A Phenomenology of Temporal Experience]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Vēvere, V. (2011). Sērens Kirkegors: būt un vēstīt [from Lat.: Søren Kierkegaard: Being and Telling]. Riga: Filozofijas un socioloģijas institūts. Vitgenšteins, L. [Wittgenstein, L.]. (1997). Filosofiskie pētījumi. [from Lat.: Philosophical Investigations], translated by Jānis Vējš, Jānis Taurens. Riga: Minerva. Vitgenšteins, L. [Wittgenstein, L.]. (2006). Loģiski filozofisks traktāts [from Lat.: A Logical Philosophical Treatise], translated by Jānis Taurens; scientific editor and author of the afterword: Arnis Ritups. Riga: Liepnieks & Ritups.

5

Lithuania

Philosophy in Lithuania after 1989* Viktoras Bachmetjevas

Introduction In this chapter, I discuss the state of Lithuanian academic philosophy over the last three decades with a special focus on the Soviet period for the purpose of comparison and context. In this discussion, I use available bibliometric data, while also commenting on the contents of certain publications where I find it appropriate. I also suggest some hypotheses to explain certain circumstances of the current situation, which, possibly, could be tested by further research. In the first section, I discuss the transitional period starting in the late 1980s and ending around 2000. Here I discuss the dilemmas which Lithuanian philosophers faced at the time and use some of the public debates of the time as illustrations. The second section discusses the thematic interests of post-Soviet Lithuanian philosophers and compare these with the interests of philosophers of the Soviet period. It is noted that Marxism, as one might expect, loses its dominant position. More unexpectedly, analytic philosophy also loses its relative importance, while comparative studies and philosophy of religion emerge as relatively popular topics. I provide some potential reasons for these developments. Finally, the third section contains an overview of the most important academic institutions, periodic publications, and figures of the last three decades. Without pretense of being exhaustive, this overview is meant only to give a taste of the most prevalent *

This chapter is based on a text previously published in The Ideology and Politics Journal, no. 1, 2022. The author would like to express his gratitude to Jonas Dagys for reading the first draft of this text and providing insightful comments, particularly on the state of analytic philosophy.

153

154 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS philosophical figures and institutions at the time of writing. In the end, I conclude with some hypotheses about possible development of academic philosophy in Lithuania.

The Transition The symbolic beginning of post-Soviet philosophy in Lithuania could well be the establishment of the Lithuanian Philosophical Association. In December 1988, annulment of the Lithuanian branch of the USSR Philosophical Association and the establishment of the autonomous Lithuanian one, it appears, was considered to be a highly significant event, outreaching a mere change in academic nomenclature, as one of the main dailies in the country Komjaunimo tiesa devoted a full page to the news. Although this symbolic event can legitimately serve as the illustration of the rupture between the Soviet status quo and the incoming post-Soviet philosophical environment, one of the goals of the new Association was to “to nurture and develop Lithuanian philosophical culture and to continue the tradition of philosophical thought” (Gedutis 2010: 9). This, then, suggests that although local philosophers felt the need for a break with their Soviet counterparts, they also felt that there is something worth preserving. As Gedutis notes: The statute unambiguously states that there is a philosophical tradition, which has to be preserved. This indicates that to the Lithuanian Philosophical Association this tradition is a value, for otherwise it would not be mentioned, and its continuation would not be declared. (Gedutis 2010: 9)

Such an inner tension can be seen in the public debates of academic philosophers in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of Soviet Union. After 1989 Lithuanian academic philosophy faced a series of dilemmas that shaped how it understood its own mission in the world. The first was the problem of continuity. As already noted, on the one hand, the very existence of at least some academic philosophers indicated that there is some past, and, therefore, tradition that is perhaps worth preserving. On the other hand, the pervasive realization, that philosophy of the Soviet period had fundamental flaws due to ideological pressures, seemed to demand

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 155 some sort of break with that tradition. This problem was perhaps exacerbated in the early 1990s, when a lack of funding and the priorities of the state being elsewhere made academic work almost extremely unrewarding and difficult, if not impossible. Academic philosophers, as indeed many members of academia in general, compared unfavorably the new state of affairs with the Soviet period. Some even argued that philosophy was possible only during the Soviet period, because outward pressures of ideology and the system in general required one to develop inner freedom, imperative for authentic philosophizing. For example, Arvydas Šliogeris once claimed that the Soviet period was more conducive to philosophy than what followed after: Acquired inner freedom resulted in attempts to think originally, without authorities, superstitions, without dogmas and ready-made thought systems, impressed from outside or acquired autonomously. (Šliogeris 1995: 108)

Others, however, countered that such argumentation perhaps is fruitful to rehabilitate some parts of philosophy of the Soviet period, but does not provide “any guidelines for philosophy to flourish in new conditions of reality that are free from ideology” (Putinaitė 2001: 600) Another dilemma was related to the conviction that Lithuanian academic philosophy and its vocabulary, conceptual apparatus, and methods are lagging behind the Western and global trends, which, therefore, means that the immediate task of Lithuanian philosophy is to catch up with those trends. On the other hand, the dominant conception of philosophy as primarily authentic thinking for some meant that the primary task of a philosopher is not to concern oneself with the outward trends, but rather instead focus on one’s own philosophical endeavor. This dilemma was articulated by the distinction between philosophercreator and philosopher-imitator (Stoškus 1995), in which only the former is seen as a true philosopher, capable of authentic and, by implication, original thinking. Others, however, countered that the very idea of authenticity as independent from a broader context is a fiction, and, therefore, the only way for Lithuanian philosophy to

156 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS say something original is by inserting oneself fruitfully into the currents of global thought not by way of imitation, but by way of productive appropriation of Western ideas and concepts and their application to local realities (Jokubaitis 1997). It is tempting to note that in these debates the more conservative elements (Šliogeris and Stoškus in the examples above) were of older generation who had acquired their education in the Soviet period, while the more open positions were defended by the younger thinkers (Putinaitė and Jokubaitis in the examples above), and, hence, there exists a generational conflict in these debates. It is a plausible hypothesis, worth testing, but there is no evidence that the participants of these debates saw them as such. Be it as it may, by the turn of the century it seems that these debates exhausted themselves. The system of academic publication crystalized, cultural magazines, which would normally be the platform of such debates, lost out in prestige and academic value to academic journals, while, at least publicly, there seems to be a consensus that the import of both classical and contemporary philosophical concepts and debates is, if not a primary, then at least a fundamental task of Lithuanian philosophy. This import was executed by translating the Western texts and publications on those texts in articles and monographs, almost exclusively, in Lithuanian.

The Output Purely quantitatively, the output of Lithuanian philosophy grew exponentially through the Soviet period and has only increased in recent decades. During the Soviet period (1960–1989), Lithuanian philosophers produced on average 20.7 articles and 1.4 monographs per year, while after the Soviet period,1 the annual averages rose to 76 and 4, respectively (Kabelka 2012: 116). Importantly, the available date incorporates only publications in Lithuanian and does not include international publications, which only suggests that, purely quantitively, Lithuanian philosophical

1

Kabelka’s bibliometric data accounts only for the period between 1990-2010, but there’s nothing to suggest that the productivity has decreased in the last decade.

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 157 production has grown even more than the data at hand shows. One can only speculate for why that is, but the possible factors are: free access to publication (lack of ideological and institutional censorship), growth of profession (increase in number of professional philosophers), and growth of professionalism (growing pressure to publish within academic environment). One method to measure the continuity, or lack thereof, is the thematic interests of Lithuanian philosophers in the periods in question. Kabelka, who has analyzed bibliometric data from both periods, notices by sheer quantity that the thematic division of Lithuanian philosophy in the Soviet period was the following:    

Marxism – 39.5%, analytic philosophy – 10.2%, phenomenological and hermeneutic philosophy 7.2%, other themes – 43.1%.

After 1989, the situation became the following:      

phenomenological-hermeneutic philosophy – 13.9%, comparative studies-orientalism 9.4%, postmodernism – 6.4%, philosophy of Arvydas Šliogeris – 6.1%, analytic philosophy – 4.6%, Christian philosophy – 4.6%. (Kabelka 2013: 26)

The central position of Marxism-Leninism as the official ideology of the Soviet Union required any aspiring philosopher to situate oneself in relation to this philosophy. There seemed to be three possibilities available: (i) devote oneself to the study of Marxism; (ii) pay some lip service to the official ideology, but in essence devote oneself to the study of other traditions or schools; (iii) cut off all the ties with official ideology or even antagonize oneself within it and risk losing institutional position and/or support. In the case of the first choice, an aspiring philosopher still had to situate oneself in relation to the official party line in the highly hierarchical Soviet nomenclature. In this regard, Lithuania did not have any self-professed figures that would openly denounce or

158 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS disagree with the official party line like, for example, György Lukács in Hungary or Leszek Kołakowski in Poland. The most prominent of Lithuanian Marxists of the period, Eugenijus Meškauskas (1909–1997), to the contrary, was famous for his good relations with the Party officials, which guaranteed some form of freedom in the choice of topics for young upcoming scholars, while he himself did not demonstrate any conceptual issues with official ideology.2 The intuition that Lithuanian philosophers of the Soviet period were not willing to choose open hostility seems to be corroborated by the fact that it is hard to think of any philosophers who represent the third option. The only philosopher that perhaps can be mentioned in this regard is Justinas Mikutis (1922–1988). A survivor of the Gulag, upon returning to occupied Lithuania, Mikutis, a Socratic and peripatetic figure, spent a few decades at Vilnius Art Academy working as a figure drawing model. During the drawing sessions, while posing for students, he would also give unofficial lectures on aesthetics. Mikutis is credited by some to have influenced a few generations of Lithuanian painters. It seems that Mikutis was the only prominent non-academic philosopher in Soviet Lithuania, although, considering that anyone who risked antagonizing the official ideology and institutions, also risked the loss of access to being published and to any intellectual employment, the possibility remains that there are still figures and/or texts that remain unknown. Be that as it may, undoubtedly the most popular strategy of Lithuanian philosophers of the period was the second choice. In general, this meant paying lip service to the official party line by officially declaring the correctness of Marxist-Leninist thought and ideals, but then turning to another subject matter and devoting oneself to it. This allowed one to engage with traditions and thought outside Marxism. Another possibility was to find oneself a

2

Although there have been some attempts to argue that one can speak of “Meškauskas School”, these are mostly based on his relative laissez-faire attitude towards non-Marxist philosophers at his Department of Philosophy at Vilnius University than anything conceptually informed.

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 159 field or a topic that would forgo any ideological implications and, in this way, avoid the attention of overzealous ideological supervisors altogether. Perhaps this, at least partially, can explain the relative prevalence of analytic philosophy in Soviet Lithuania or, alternatively, might have led some to the decision to research the history of Lithuanian philosophy. Nevertheless, the scare of attention of the censors could not have been too high, as a lot of Lithuanian philosophers also read and published on the Continental tradition and its non-Marxist strands, especially on phenomenology and hermeneutics, which clearly required some ideological equilibristic and strategic quoting. The choice of the second option, however, did mean that a philosopher would have to compromise not only by inserting material that he or she might disagree with, but also by omitting things that he or she might think need to be said. Therefore, it is not surprising to find out that there was some level of double intellectual life going on. For example, Bronius Kuzmickas (b. 1935), a philosophy professor at the Academy of Sciences and a prominent figure in the Soviet period, also wrote for émigré periodicals under various pseudonyms. Tomas Sodeika (b. 1949), at the time an upcoming philosopher at Vilnius University, collaborated in cultural samizdat. Arvydas Šliogeris (1944–2019) wrote both texts for publications that met all ideological requirements of the time, and some that he himself thought would never be published. His confession in the Introduction to Being and World, published in 1990, is a testament to that and an illustration of what the choice of the second option entailed for a philosopher in Soviet times: I wrote Being and World as if this book will remain in the drawer forever. Therefore, I did not have to lie, to use Aesopian language and to curtsy to the status quo. (Šliogeris 1990: 7)

This, of course, raises questions of how to interpret the published texts of the adherents of the second option. If it is agreed that the published texts contained lies, Aesopian language and curtsies to the status quo, then the reading of the academic texts surely requires a specific hermeneutic tactic that would allow for the correct interpretation of this texts. Generally, it is presumed that the other

160 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS members of the community knew how to interpret these texts because they knew the context: the required quotes, the verbal codes, etc. Even if that is the case, as time passes and the community of those who did in fact live in the Soviet reality shrinks, the risk that the published texts will be misinterpreted only grows. After 1989, the thematic constellation of Lithuanian philosophy was dramatically transformed. Although one could expect the reduction of Marxist-oriented output in this period, the fact that Marxism almost completely disappears as a theme in Lithuanian philosophy indicates that the majority, if not all, Marxist output during the Soviet period was done out of necessity rather than genuine interest. Another factor, perhaps, was that those few, who remained faithful to Marxism, lost institutional power and were viewed mainly negatively by the rest of the philosophical community. Only in the most recent decade has there been some revival of Marxist thought, first and foremost associated with the work of Andrius Bielskis (b. 1973), who tries to combine Aristotelian understanding of politics and virtue, inspired by Alasdair MacIntyre, with Marxist critique of ideology and capitalism. It remains to be seen if these efforts will develop into a broader strand of Lithuanian philosophy. Having diagnosed the almost complete disappearance of Marxism from the horizon, we can then note that, at least quantitatively, neither philosophical school or tradition took its place as the dominant philosophical locus, with no particular philosophical school or tradition exceeding 15% of the whole of academic philosophical output in terms of quantity. This, perhaps, can be interpreted as a sign of healthy diversity within Lithuanian philosophical community, although, it has led some commentators to remark on unhealthy fragmentation and, therefore, a lack of interaction and discussion among Lithuanian philosophers. As, for example, Nerijus Milerius remarked: In Lithuania even for a “green” philosopher, who’s just starting out, it is quite easy to become the first — to reflect on or merely introduce to the philosophical horizon a topic, that here no one yet has reflected upon or even noticed. (Milerius 2002: 156)

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 161 Quantitatively, phenomenology and hermeneutics attract the most attention with 13.9% of all academic publications in the period were devoted to this tradition. Although the quantity of the output does not necessarily have a correlation with quality, the fact that the three most prominent Lithuanian philosophers of the last three decades—Arvydas Šliogeris, Tomas Sodeika, and Arūnas Sverdiolas (b. 1949)—all worked within this tradition surely indicates that contemporary Lithuanian philosophy is most interested in the development of the phenomenologicalhermeneutic tradition. Algis Mickūnas, an American-Lithuanian philosopher, working in the broader tradition of phenomenology, has authored numerous books and lectured at various Lithuanian universities and, thus, also undoubtedly contributed to the prevalence of phenomenology among Lithuanian philosophers. Thematically philosophers working in this tradition are interested in a variety of topics: imagination (Sabolius 2012), pain (Geniušas 2020), animality (Gutauskas 2021), and issues of early phenomenology (Jonkus 2015). These are just a few examples and is in no way meant to be an exhaustive list, but it is still possible to remark that the conclusion of Arūnas Sverdiolas and Tomas Kačerauskas that “the dominant concern of phenomenologists in Lithuania is the contact between poetry and philosophy” (Sverdiolas and Kačerauskas 2009: 38) is completely unfounded and even misleading. To the contrary, this tradition seems to be most diverse and vibrant in Lithuanian academic philosophy. Gedutis is right that “it is possible to see some beginnings of phenomenological tradition, and, presuming that the intensity of phenomenological texts will not cease, one can expect in the future the emergence of [specifically] Lithuanian phenomenological tradition” (Gedutis 2010: 17). If in terms of phenomenological-hermeneutic tradition one can see certain continuity and growth between the Soviet and postSoviet periods (7.2% in the former period and 13.9% in the latter), the opposite can be observed in terms of analytic philosophy. If during the Soviet period analytic philosophy was the second most productive in terms of quantity (10.6% of the whole output), then in the two subsequent decades its share of the whole academic

162 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS philosophical discourse significantly decreased (4.6%). It is difficult to identify the reason for such a change. For example, Jonas Dagys and Evaldas Nekrašas theorize that in the Soviet period the development of research into philosophy of language and philosophy of science was made easier by the fact that at the time (the 1980s — V.B.), when Marxist philosophy was, of course, still dominant, but the political regime became somewhat more liberal, the investigation into the problems of philosophy of language and philosophy of science came to be seen as ideologically comparatively neutral (contrary to, for example, political philosophy) and useful for the progress of science. (Dagys & Nekrašas 2010: 43–44)

Another possible factor was the fact that the two most prominent and productive figures of the Soviet period in the field — Rolandas Pavilionis (1944–2006) and Algirdas Degutis (b. 1951) — abandoned their work after Independence. Pavilionis left for academic administration and politics, while Degutis turned his attention to issues in political philosophy. Deprived of human capital, analytic philosophy in the first two decades of Independence was virtually non-existent. This is reflected by not only the absence of publications in this field, but also the absence of analytic philosophy in the study programs. For example, between 1990 and 2006 there has been virtually no doctoral dissertation written and defended on the problems in analytic tradition. Recently, the situation has been gradually changing, with some research groups forming at Vilnius University with the focus on analytic philosophy of language, logic, and metaphysics. The bridge between the Soviet and the recent periods is provided by Evaldas Nekrašas (b. 1945), whose monograph Logical Empiricism and Scientific Methodology (Nekrašas 1979), was the first academic monograph on philosophy of science in the Soviet period, and whose reappraisal of positivism, The Positive Mind: Its Developments and Impact on Modernity and Postmodernity (Nekrašas 2016), remains one of the few book-length studies by a Lithuanian philosopher available in English. The two completely new thematic strands that were virtually non-existent during the Soviet period are comparative Oriental studies and philosophy of religion. In the field of Oriental studies, the most productive figure is Antanas Andrijauskas (b. 1948), who

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 163 is mostly interested in comparisons of Indian, Chinese, Islamic traditional cultures with the West, with the particular focus on art and aesthetics. If Andrijauskas can be considered to be interested in a comparative aspect, Audrius Beinorius (b. 1964) is willing to investigate the Orient on its own terms. He particularly focuses on Indian culture and intellectual tradition. The philosophy of religion is another “winner” in terms of thematic interest after the collapse of the Soviet system. Rita Šerpytytė (b. 1954) is the most consistent and productive philosopher in this regard and her two monographs Nihilism and Western Philosophy (Šerpytytė 2007) and The Specters of Reality. Western Nihilism Between Diagnosis and Theory (Šerpytytė 2019) presents a continuous attempt to analyze the so-called post-secular turn in contemporary philosophy. She comments on and engages with thinkers like Jacques Derrida, Gianni Vattimo, and Giorgio Agamben, among others. Another undoubted authority in the field is Tomas Sodeika. Famous for preferring spoken word in the classroom to academic publications, Sodeika exerted influence not by monographs or academic articles, but by teaching in the classroom and publications in cultural periodicals and alike. His translation and introduction to Martin Buber’s I and Thou (Sodeika 1998) and introduction to the Lithuanian edition of Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling (Sodeika 1995) became important points of reference for the subsequent discussions in Lithuanian philosophy of religion. In conclusion, thematically one can diagnose almost complete disappearance of Marxism from the horizon, an increased interest in and continuing growth of phenomenological-hermeneutic tradition, a significant decrease of the share of analytic philosophy, and the emergence of comparative and Oriental studies and philosophy of religion. It is important to emphasize once again that the bibliometric data shows only quantitative aspects that do not have a necessary correlation with the quality of publications. Also, the bibliometric data available analyses only academic publications in Lithuanian and in this way has a “blind spot” for international publications. If this can be somewhat justifiable while analyzing the Soviet period (when non-Lithuanian publications were virtually

164 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS non-existent) after 1989 that the picture becomes increasingly skewed. Although there was a tendency among Lithuanian philosophers to duplicate their articles (by first publishing the article in Lithuanian and then, if possible, publishing the same text in English or other language3), recently there is a growing trend among Lithuanian philosophers to publish only in English. For example, Vilius Dranseika, who works in the field of experimental philosophy among other interests, publishes almost exclusively in English. The same can be said about Kristupas Sabolius and some others. Quite a few select a “mixed” strategy of variating between the two: choosing either Lithuanian, or English, according to the most probable audience of their research. This will surely require adjusting the scope of bibliometric analysis in the future. For the time being, one can merely note the gradual but increasing “coming out” of Lithuanian philosophy into the international academic milieu. For this section, I have followed Kabelka’s thematic division as a framework, with the slight adjustment of renaming what he called Christian philosophy into the philosophy of religion. In his analysis, he identifies one more significant theme in the post-Soviet period, namely, the philosophy of Arvydas Šliogeris, which comprises 6.1% of all the philosophical output in the post-Soviet period, i. e. quantitively more than analytic philosophy and philosophy of religion. I presume that this name might not be familiar to foreign readers, therefore, I chose not to discuss Šliogeris in the thematic section, but rather do that in the next section, devoted to prominent figures.

Prominent Figures Arvydas Šliogeris is undoubtedly the most prolific and influential Lithuanian thinker of the post-Soviet period. This is not only shown in the numbers, as mentioned above, but also testified by numerous

3

The article of Kačerauskas and Sverdiolas, quoted in this chapter, is a case in point. At first it was published in a Lithuanian academic journal and then in an international academic journal in English.

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 165 commentators. Although he came to prominence in the 1980s, the rise of his original output coincided with the start of Perestroika and subsequent Independence. The most important of his original works are Being and World (Šliogeris 1990), Silence of Transcendence (Šliogeris 1996), and Nothingness and Is-ness (Šliogeris 2005). Šliogeris is mostly preoccupied with the question of Being and, more specifically, the relation between human existence and the outer Being. Equally suspicious of transcendent Being and complete solipsism of solitary human existence, Šliogeris tries to develop a space in between, in which human existence is shaped by both an overwhelming realization of Nothingness and the immediate concrete sensual and, preferably non-lingual, aesthetic experiences. In order to articulate both, Šliogeris coins his own conceptual apparatus. A human here is understood as a Son of Nothingness, while the importance of one’s concrete experiences in one’s immediate surrounding is exemplified by the notion of philotopy. An elegant and forceful writer, Šliogeris, by a broad consensus, is the only candidate to original thinking among contemporary Lithuanian philosophers. Having said that, in Lithuania, his thought has not been systematically investigated yet (all attempts at writing a dissertation on his thought so far have come to naught), therefore, his standing in a broader philosophical tradition remains unclear. At the time of writing, he remains virtually unknown outside of Lithuania and, therefore, his conceptual contribution to a broader philosophical tradition remains non-existent. It remains to be seen if that is bound to change in the future. Šliogeris passed away in 2019. The other two extremely influential philosophers of the period are Tomas Sodeika and Arūnas Sverdiolas. They are of the same generation as Šliogeris (all three were born in the 1940s) and together were the single most influential thinkers of the last thirty years in the country. Sodeika was the first to introduce Jewish thought in general and Martin Buber in particular in the 1990s, while also, in addition, wrote extensively on phenomenology, especially Martin Heidegger and Roman Ingardern. Sverdiolas, in turn, is mostly interested in hermeneutic tradition. He wrote extensively on Paul Ricœur, Hans-Georg Gadamer, and other

166 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS hermeneutic philosophers. At the same time, he devoted some efforts to the Lithuanian philosophical tradition (Sverdiolas 2012) and was the spiritus movens of the journal Baltos lankos, which was influential in Lithuanian philosophy and humanities for the biggest part of the last three decades. Leonidas Donskis (1962–2016) was younger by roughly a decade than the first three, and rose to prominence in the 2000s with a series of books on ideology, utopia, and moral imagination. He was the first Lithuanian philosopher, whose academic output was primarily in English, and, in addition, he also was a popular public intellectual and commentator on current affairs in the country. After academic hiatus during a spell as a member of the European Parliament, he started a fruitful collaboration with Zygmunt Bauman in the 2010s (Donskis & Bauman 2011; Donskis & Bauman 2013). Unfortunately, a premature death in 2016 cut short what was otherwise a brilliant academic career. Algis Uždavinys (1962–2010) was another prolific philosopher whose career was cut short by an untimely death. As an academic philosopher, Uždavinys was primarily interested in hermeneutical comparative studies. He’s published comparative studies on Egyptian and Greek religions (Uždavinys 2008) and Islamic and Jewish Mysticism (Uždavinys 2011) among others. In addition to being a prolific scholar, Uždavinys was active as an art critic. Alvydas Jokubaitis (b. 1959), roughly of the same generation as Donskis and Uždavinys, is a political philosopher, whose focus is primarily the critical assessment of contemporary liberalism in politics and scientism in academia. Jūratė Baranova (1955–2021) and Rita Šerpytytė (b. 1954), who are a bit younger than the former group and a bit older than the latter, also stand apart from both of these groups in their philosophical interests and linguistic orientation. Baranova, a productive scientist, writer, and publicist, as an academic philosopher was notable as a pioneer of philosophical didactics in Lithuania (she authored a few popular textbooks of philosophy for secondary schools) and also worked on the intersection of philosophy and art, especially literature. If Šliogeris, Sodeika, and Sverdiolas mostly draw on German and French thinkers, while

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 167 Donskis and Jokubaitis are much more open to English speaking political philosophy, Šerpytytė is the expert of contemporary Italian philosophy. In addition to the monographs, mentioned above, she also edited two volumes on the thought of Emmanuel Levinas. In contrast to Šliogeris, Sodeika, and Sverdiolas, who all defended their dissertations in the Soviet period, Šerpytytė, Donskis, and Jokubaitis all became academic philosophers during the transitional period of 1988 – 1992. All the subsequent Lithuanian philosophers of note defended their theses in independent Lithuania, which marked not only the growing number of academic philosophers, but also the growing number of books and articles, as well as the increasing variety of themes. Cultural anthropology (Gintautas Mažeikis), postmodernism and feminism (Audronė Žukauskaitė), philosophy of cinema (Nerijus Milerius), hermeneutic-analytic divide (Marius Povilas Šaulauskas), sociology of science (Aldis Gedutis) added to the continuous interest in Husserlian and contemporary phenomenology (Dalius Jonkus, Mintautas Gutauskas) and contemporary continental ethics (Danutė Bacevičiūtė, Jolanta Saldukaitytė, Viktoras Bachmetjevas). Some of the recent topical and methodical interests include experimental philosophy (Vilius Dranseika), speculative realism (Kristupas Sabolius), philosophy of communication (Kęstas Kirtiklis), and philosophy of disability (Jurga Jonutytė), among others. This recent decade was also the period when Lithuanian academic philosophy seems to have mastered English as its go-to language for academic publications, which was not the case during the first two decades of Independence. During the Soviet period, Russian language was seen as a window into the world and a benchmark for the quality of the work. This was quickly forgotten after Independence, but rather than turning to the lingua franca of the academic world at present, i. e. English, Lithuanian academic philosophy at first focused on writing and publishing in Lithuanian. It is difficult to say definitively what were the reasons, but perhaps it was a mixture of factors: a wave of patriotic sentiment, understanding philosophical practice as a form of uncovering the origins of thought in language, the influence of

168 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS diaspora philosophers and their notions of carriers of language as a means of survival of the Lithuanian nation altogether, the perceived duty to enrich Lithuanian language and culture, lack of international contacts and, last but not least, insufficient knowledge of English. Be it as it may, the perceived duty to enrich Lithuanian language and culture was definitely a factor in another aspect of the activities of Lithuanian philosophers in the first two decades of the post-Soviet period, namely, the translations of major texts of Western philosophical tradition. Basically, every prominent Lithuanian philosopher of the period was also an accomplished translator. Šliogeris (Hegel, Heidegger, Arendt, Popper), Sodeika (Husserl, Buber), Sverdiolas (Levinas, Gadamer, Ricœur, MerleauPonty), Šerpytytė (Vattimo), Jokubaitis (Charles Taylor, Isaiah Berlin), among countless others, all saw translating philosophy into Lithuanian as a significant part of their philosophical oeuvre. Tatjana Aleknienė, who works in the field of classical philosophy, occupies a special place in this regard with her splendid translations of Plato’s dialogues, enriched by extensive introductions, commentaries, and additional critical apparatus, that became a golden standard of Lithuanian philosophical publishing. Another curious and, perhaps, unique, development is the drifting of some academic philosophers toward other disciplines and becoming key figures there. Zenonas Norkus, in addition to his work on the philosophy of history, is also notable for his work in the field of contemporary comparative sociology. Aleksandras Dobryninas, a philosopher by education, is one of the leaders in criminology in Lithuania, Nerija Putinaitė, at the beginning of her academic career a scholar of Kant, has become a prominent Sovietologist and historian of culture. These are just examples and in no way meant to be an exhaustive list. Also, it remains to be seen if these developments are of accidental character or indicate some broader tendencies in Lithuanian academic philosophy. In the last three decades, Lithuania has acquired translations of more or less all major philosophical texts in Lithuanian. A significant part of that was facilitated by the funding of Open Society Lithuania, which produced around 400 translations of

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 169 major texts of Western intellectual tradition, including Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hobbes, etc. After the winding down of the program in 2008, this work continues, but without the same intensity as before.

Academic Institutions and Philosophical Periodicals Vilnius University remains the focal point of Lithuanian academic philosophy. In 1989 the re-establishment of the Faculty of Philosophy at the university was a highly symbolic event. The Faculty has philosophy programs at all levels, is the home to the most influential academic philosophical journal Problemos, and generally sets the tone for academic philosophy in Lithuania. The Faculty of Philosophy is the only institution in Lithuania that produces some research in analytic philosophy, but it is particularly strong in contemporary continental philosophy. Šerpytytė, Sabolius, and Dranseika seem to be the most productive at the moment of writing, while Sodeika is also associated with the Faculty. In addition, Sverdiolas is an emeritus professor at the Faculty of Philology, which focuses on various theories of meaning and literature. Political philosophy is in the focus of the Institute of International Relations and Political Sciences, where Jokubaitis is the current head of the Department of Political Philosophy and History of Ideas. The other notable institution is the Lithuanian Culture Research Institute. It has departments devoted to the history of Lithuanian philosophy, Ancient and Medieval culture, comparative studies, and contemporary philosophy. The Institute runs various PhD programs related to philosophy. Together with Vilnius University, the Institute is responsible for the majority of academic philosophical output in Lithuania. The most notable and productive philosopher at the Institute currently is Audronė Žukauskaitė, who has published on postmodernity, feminism, cinema, and recently focuses on bio-philosophy and the Anthropocene. Bacevičiūtė, who works in the field of contemporary ethics, is another notable figure here.

170 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS Vytautas Magnus University is the only other institution that has all levels of philosophy programs. Established in 1989 by émigré and local intellectuals as the new, free university without any ideological background and censorship, Vytautas Magnus University styles itself as a liberal, student-oriented academic institution. Jonkus (phenomenology), Mažeikis (philosophy of communication, cultural anthropology), and Aleknienė (ancient philosophy) are the most productive and notable figures there at the time of writing. Although there have been numerous attempts to establish philosophy or related programs at other universities, at the moment, only Vilnius University and Vytautas Magnus University have philosophy programs.4 Nevertheless, almost every university in Lithuania has a Department of Philosophy to serve the general didactic purposes of the university. Some of those departments are academically more active than others. Andrius Bielskis at Mykolas Romeris University and Tomas Kačerauskas at Vilnius Tech University are productive and active both in academic philosophy and in the public arena as public intellectuals. Problemos is by far the most influential philosophical journal in Lithuania. Established in the Soviet period, it is the longest running philosophical journal and provides a certain continuity with the past. After many years of having been almost exclusively geared towards local philosophers and published in Lithuanian, in recent years it has an increasing number of publications in English. It can be interpreted as a sign of both local philosophers’ willingness to publish in English, but, perhaps, also an indication of an increasing attraction of the journal to non-Lithuanian authors. Problemos normally publishes two issues per year and a biannual supplement under the guidance of long-time editor-in-chief Nijolė Radavičienė.

4

With the exception of European Humanities University, Belarussian university in exile in Vilnius, which runs a PhD program in philosophy. I do not include this institution in this overview, because its relations with the rest of Lithuanian academic life are sporadic and of rather accidental nature.

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 171 Logos is a quarterly journal devoted to scholarly studies in all areas of philosophy, but also open to academic publications in religious studies, arts, and culture. Somewhat unusually, it is published not by an academic institution, but by an individual Dalia Marija Stančienė, who also serves as the editor in chief since the establishment of the journal in 1990. Athena is an annual philosophical journal, published by the Lithuanian Culture Research Institute since 2006. Every issue focuses on one philosophical theme or topic, for example, the latest issue is devoted to philosophy of media and technology. It has no editor-in-chief, but instead is run by the collegial team of editors. Filosofija. Sociologija is a journal under the auspices of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Its four issues per year are divided between philosophy and sociology with each getting two separate issues annually. Darbai ir dienos is an academic journal published by Vytautas Magnus University, which incorporates all the disciplines in humanities and, therefore, philosophical publications there are continuous, but far from the main occurrence. Two other academic journals that featured philosophy heavily, Religija ir kultūra and Žmogus ir žodis, have ceased publication.

In Conclusion After three decades of Lithuanian independence, it is very difficult to see any significant continuity with the Soviet period. Lithuanian academic philosophy in the Soviet period started virtually from zero and, therefore, it is difficult to expect any valuable or meaningful tradition to have emerged in such a short period of time under such unfavorable conditions. In addition, methodological possibilities, available to Soviet philosophers—dialecticmaterialism or one form or another of Aesopian language—are clearly unattractive to contemporary Lithuanian philosophers, as they are seen as either incapable of being fruitful (the former), or simply unnecessarily complicated (the latter) for successful philosophical endeavor. Instead, philosophy in Lithuania after 1989 mainly saw its goal as catching up with Western contemporary

172 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS philosophy, hence the importance of translation in addition to philosophical research. And although there have been some attempts to argue for continuity between Soviet and post-Soviet philosophy in Lithuania, it seems that for the most part the most productive Lithuanian philosophers are simply not interested. Even those who work in the history of philosophy in Lithuania are more interested in other things—the philosophy in Vilnius University in the 16th – 18th centuries or in the interwar period. This lack of interest is illustrated by the fact that there is still no systematic study on the philosophy of the Soviet period (by contrast, there are a few on the academic history and historiography in the Soviet period) and the one dissertation on Marxist philosophy in Lithuania is being written at the Faculty of History rather than the Faculty of Philosophy. Therefore, it seems that currently academic philosophy is more interested in participating in the international philosophical debates than investigating its murky origins in the Soviet period. Having noted the increasing internationalization of Lithuanian philosophers in terms of their publications, it is also important to note that a Lithuanian philosopher with an academic position outside of the country is still a relatively rare occurrence, while a philosopher of non-Lithuanian origin with an academic position in a Lithuanian institution is an even rarer one. In addition, the faculty hiring procedures at the three institutions with PhD programs in philosophy (Vilnius University, Lithuanian Culture Research Institute, and Vytautas Magnus University) lack transparency, while the strongest of them—Faculty of Philosophy at Vilnius University—tends to hire exclusively its own alumni and, thus, seems to be a paradigmatic case of faculty inbreeding, which is defined as “the practice of selecting former students of an institution as members of its faculty” (Eells & Cleveland 1999: 579). It is as of now not evident that this situation is seen as problematic by the administrators of the aforementioned institutions, therefore, it remains unclear how and when this problem is going to be addressed. Finally, in light of the above, the last three decades of Lithuanian philosophy can hardly be described as post-Soviet. After

PHILOSOPHY IN LITHUANIA AFTER 1989 173 the initial period of transition, the Soviet period ceased to be a meaningful point of reference. It is unclear, however, what characterizes these three decades instead. Perhaps here spatial metaphors can be more helpful than temporal, as general intuitions and goal of the philosophers of the period are not to enter into some new era or period, but rather to belong. As has been noted, the texts of Lithuanian philosophers of the period after 1989 are saturated with intentions of “joining,” “confluence,” “merging,” etc. This is completely in line and reflects the broader intention of society of joining the “West” and its political and cultural institutions. Lithuanian academic philosophy, then, for the most can be seen as simply reflecting this more general striving and seeing as its goal to be a part of the Western or global academic philosophical trends and currents so it could simply flow further on as a part of those trends and currents.

Bibliography Bauman, Z., Donskis, L. (2013). Moral Blindness: the Loss of Sensitivity in Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bauman, Z., Donskis, L. (2016). Liquid Evil. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dagys, J., Nekrašas, E. (2010). Analitinė kalbos ir mokslo filosofija Lietuvoje. Problemos 78: 43–51. Eelss, W. C., Cleveland, A. C. (1999). Faculty Inbreeding. The Journal of Higher Education 70(5): 579–588. Gedutis, A. (2010). Filosofija Lietuvoje po 1989: ką apie tai byloja lietuviški akademiniai žurnalai? Problemos 78: 7–21. Geniušas, S. (2020). The Phenomenology of Pain. Athens: Ohio University Press. Gutauskas, M. (2010). Dialogo erdvė: fenomenologinis požiūris. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Gutauskas, M. (2021). Žmogus ir gyvūnas. Antropologinis skirtumas fenomenologinėje hermeneutinėje filosofijoje. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Jokubaitis, Alvydas (1997). Postmodernizmas ir konservatizmas. Kaunas: Naujasis lankas. Jonkus, D. (2015). Vosyliaus Sezemano filosofija: savęs pažinimo ir estetinės patirties fenomenologija. Vilnius: Versus aureus.

174 VIKTORAS BACHMETJEVAS Kabelka, G. (2012). Lietuvos filosofijos raida 1960 – 2010: apimtis, institucijos, leidiniai. Problemos 81: 109–123. Kabelka, G. (2013). Lietuvos filosofijos posovietinė transformacija: filosofijos kryptys, disciplinos, produktyvumas. Problemos 83: 22–34. Milerius, N. (2002). Lietuvos filosofijos topografinis žemėlapis. Baltos lankos 15/16: 146–164. Nekrašas, E. (1979). Loginis empirizmas ir mokslo metodologija. Vilnius: Mintis. Nekrašas, E. (2016). The Positive Mind. Its Development and Impact on Modernity and Postmodernity. New York: Central University Press. Putinaitė, N. (2001). Ar esama Lietuvoje filosofijos? Naujasis židinys-Aidai 11: 599–605. Sabolius, K. (2012). Įnirtingas miegas: vaizduotė ir fenomenologija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Sodeika, T. (1995). Įvadas. Soren Kierkegaard Baimė ir drebėjimas. Vilnius: Aidai, 7–51. Sodeika, T. (1998). Martinas Buberis ir žydiškoji „graikiškojo mąstymo“ alternatyva. Martin Buber Dialogo principas I. Aš ir Tu. Vilnius: Katalikų pasaulis, 7–66. Stoškus, K. (1995). Postmoderniškas šokis ant Lietuvos filosofinės tradicijos. Kultūros barai, 8-9: 16–20, 10: 15–19, 11: 20–25. Sverdiolas, A. (2012). Kultūra lietuvių filosofų akiratyje. Vilnius: Apostrofa. Sverdiolas, A & Kačerauskas, Tomas. (2009). Phenomenology in Lithuania. Studies in Eastern European Thought 61: 31–41. Šerpytytė, R. (2007). Nihilizmas ir Vakarų filosofija. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Šerpytytė, R. (2019). Tikrovės spektrai. Vilnius: Vilniaus universiteto leidykla. Šliogeris, A. (1990). Būtis ir pasaulis. Tyliojo gyvenimo fragmentai. Vilnius: Mintis. Šliogeris, A. (1995). Konservatoriaus išpažintys. Vilnius: Pradai. Šliogeris, A. (1996). Transcendencijos tyla: pamatiniai filosofijos klausimai. Vilnius: Pradai. Šliogeris, A. (2005). Niekis ir Esmas. Vilnius: Apostrofa. Uždavinys, A. (2008). Philosophy as a Rite of Rebirth: From Ancient Egypt to Neoplatonism. London: The Prometheus Trust. Uždavinys, A. (2011). Ascent to Heaven in Islamic and Jewish Mysticism. London: The Matheson Trust.

6

Moldova

Constructing a Philosophical Voice Discursive Positions in Moldovan Philosophical Journals* Alexandru Cosmescu

2007: The Great Value Controversy 2007 is the year that marked a change in the name of the Journal of Philosophy and Law: it became Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science—partly in order to proclaim publicly the autonomy of social science and political science, which, as we saw in papers published in 1992, were then still institutionally associated with philosophy and gained “independence” initially through their own rubrics, then through being included in the title of the journal. “Law” disappeared from the title, since the Law department was merged with the History Institute (an institutional move reversed in 2013). At the same time, the “new” journal claimed the “heritage” of the Journal of Philosophy and Law: it was edited by part of the previous institutional team, and the same authors continued to publish there. The first difference is the variety of rubrics: the rubric Philosophy continues to be the main one for philosophers, but, together with it, philosophy papers by PhD students are published, together with papers by PhD students studying other disciplines, in the rubric Research Reports; the Heritage rubric, inaugurated in 1992, continues; conference reviews appears in the rubric Scientific Life. Alongside, there are special rubrics for Political Science and Social Science. The first philosophy paper published in the first 2007 issue of the new incarnation of the journal was Lidia Troianowski’s *

This chapter is based on a text previously published in The Ideology and Politics Journal, no. 1, 2022.

175

176 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU Aesthetic values: Globalization Versus Universality (Troianowski, 2007a). The paper presents itself as a critique of postmodernity in art, citing, among others, authors like Michel Butor or Ihab Hassan: The inventory of particular resources of globalization culture shows not only a crisis of aesthetical-moral and artistic values, but of emotions, feelings, spirit as well; what is lately claimed to be called art has the mission of triggering indignation, discouraging the elevated audience, educated on the basis of classic works. The crisis that we are reflecting about affected radically all artistic genres, but we attest the most serious consequences in literature, theater, cinematography, painting. Today one is not shocked when one hears as ultima ratio about an exhibition that painting, as an artistic genre, is stuck in the past. Assessing the situation in the field of literature—a genre meant to inform, analyze, cultivate, promote ideals, given that poetry, novels create for the reader the real chance to penetrate fields where the most sensitive human feelings, emotions, and aspirations are dealt with, we observe a crisis situation. Although, through the complex tools that it has, literature, more than other genres, is able to teach love, consideration, respect for tradition, nation, homeland, the last hour creations of a lot of local artists, and not only them, create the impression of being meant to deny these qualities, because a simple monitoring of the titles of works by prose writers like St. Baștovoi and A. Vakulovski [the author refers to A. Vakulovski’s 2002 debut novel, Pizdeț, titled with a Russian vernacular analogous in function to the English Oh fuck — A. C.] create an aesthetic-moral discomfort due to indecent, licentious, vulgar language. Thus, one just has to resign oneself with the thought that we can learn patriotism, love, respect for values only from the works of classics like Eminescu, Eliade, Iorga, Blaga, Goethe, Shakespeare, etc., works that even after 300-400 years will remain an unsurpassed model, always actual and valid. (Troianowski, 2007a: 52)

The tone of this paper illustrates a stance that, in the late 1990s-early 2000s, was widespread in the Moldovan cultural establishment—a rejection of “postmodernism”, identified with denial of “traditional values”. So, the author’s voice becomes that of a cultural critic—the philosopher as the one who criticizes the “rotten present” in the name of “eternal values”. The author identifies herself with the “elevated audience”, educated on the basis of a “classical canon”, and rejects what creates a visceral reaction of “indignation” due to not “promoting” the values the author identifies with. So, another nuance is present in the critique of “postmodernity”: the voice of the philosopher as “defender” of a cultural corpus and of the values

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 177 it expresses, in the face of what they perceive as disturbing. The conservative agenda is obvious. The same topic is continued—but with a different attitude— in Silvia Șaptefrați’s paper The Status of Value in Postmodernism (Șaptefrați 2007). Șaptefrați has a more sympathetic view towards postmodernism, and, after a tour through Nietzsche, Scheler, Derrida, Vattimo, Bauman, she states: Because the hierarchy of values is individual and spontaneous, Max Scheler’s attempt to accomplish an absolute hierarchy of values failed. In the postmodern condition, that rears up both when confronted with definitions and with immutable criteria of classification and hierarchies, such an attempt is meaningless. (Șaptefrați 2007: 60)

And she continues—a position that I think is worth mentioning both in the context of both the previous paper in the issue (Troianwoski 2007a) and the one that follows (Capcelea 2007a): … an axiological disagreement is neither fatal, nor solvable, representing an inevitable consequence of a pluralistic society. (Șaptefrați 2007: 61)

Thus, Șaptefrați’s claim—and the basic orientation of the philosophical voice she is inhabiting—is one of quietist noticing of an impossibility, while attuned to present conditions. The impossibility of reaching a consensus about a hierarchy of values is not decried but presented as “the way things are now”. In these conditions, she does not hesitate to formulate a normative proposal anyway, but with a different rationale: Neglecting spiritual values inevitably leads to a flattening of axiological competence. [...] Authentic values are not given once and for all, they require a continuous effort of sensitization and understanding [...]. Thus, educationally, the family, society, and educational institutions have to join their efforts, acting not through imposing values, but indirectly, through stimulating axiological necessities, so that young people would seek values, would intuit them, take them up and, ultimately, aspire to create new values. (Șaptefrați 2007: 62)

The normative aspect of Șaptefrați’s proposal is not related to a concrete type of value, but to a kind of sensitivity to values as such, which, she claims, is needed because without cultivating it something essential about being a human is lost. The voice itself is

178 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU much more nuanced than others: the voice of “someone who notices” and claims that the deepest problematic issue is not in what others think is the substantive issue (“axiological disagreement”), but in something that lies beyond simple disagreement between supporters of one camp or another. Again in contrast to others, the “call to action”, or the “task” is not a positive program, but cultivating a type of sensitivity. The voice of the philosopher as unbothered by what bothers others so much as to enter debates and looking at issues that lie beyond the usual (positive) subject of debates—the philosopher as a contemplative quietist. In contrast to Șaptefrați, and closer ideologically and structurally to Troianowski, Valeriu Capcelea’s paper (the last one published in the rubric Philosophy of this issue) The Philosophical Dimension of the Category “Tradition” and Its Social Functions (Capcelea 2007a) presents itself as an unapologetic defense of “tradition” and “traditional values” in the face of the “foreign influence”—both the Soviet past and the contemporary cosmopolitism. I will quote an excerpt that illustrates these attitudes: The volume of information contained in the national traditions creates optimal conditions for the assimilation by the young generation of the being, history, and behavioral norms of the people it is a part of. But the nihilistic and indifferent attitude towards the traditions of our people, promoted for decades by the totalitarian regime, determined the rise of a generation that is indifferent to its own past, to historical heritage, to the Homeland [...]. As a consequence, the urgency of the issue of maintaining national memory, continuity of generations, of their solidarity, which would exclude the current tensions, divergences, and antagonisms. A special, and very important place in solving this problem belongs to national traditions, which can help with the reorientation of individual consciousness from cultural values that are foreign to the local environment towards the national memory and the traditional cultural values of our people [...]. Only in this case the socialization process can be efficient, because it will be determined by the experience distilled due to traditions, traditional methods of child rearing (Capcelea, 2007a: 70–71).

Beyond the ideological commitments and the far-right language I would prefer to not comment on, the philosophical position/voice that the author is inhabiting is one of “defender” of what is

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 179 perceived as “traditional heritage”, proposing a clear normative program and insisting that “only in this case” the future would look bright. So, with the voice nuances that we also saw in other articles, the philosopher as a “critic of the present”, “defender of values”, and “knower of the way out of the present predicament”. The philosophy paper published in the Research Reports rubric–belonging to Alexe Rău, the late director of the National Library of Moldova, a poet and essayist interested in philosophy that decided to study for a PhD late in his life–bears the title Writing as Daseinogram (Rău 2007: 87–95). The paper reads like a free-form essay (much more so than any of the papers previously analyzed here), filled with references to Heidegger, Derrida, Bergson, Borges, Plato, A. de Muralt, Merleau-Ponty—mostly names relevant for the continental/phenomenological tradition. The author follows the trail of a basic metaphor: Traces of beings are a codified information about these beings. Just as we research other living beings based on the tracks they leave in nature, writing can be considered, as well, the trace left by Dasein during its spiritual path, the trace that speaks mostly about the invisible of the human being and about its transcendental dimension (just as a cardiogram shows/tells us almost everything about the heart without seeing the latter). Writing can thus be also considered as a kind of cardiogram of the less- or not seen part of being, of spirit. Writing is a daseinogram, and the book and the library are, in this sense, a daseinoscope, a being-graph. (Rău 2007: 89)

In reading this excerpt, we can notice a clear commitment to a Heideggerian/Derridean-inspired vocabulary and at least an attempt to “follow” them in disclosing a field that is personally interesting for the author. So an “essayistic” voice of the philosopher as one exploring a topic by using resources offered by the philosophical tradition to which they are committed. One thing that can be emphasized about the paper is that this wholly different kind of voice appears as the voice of a PhD student publishing in the Research Reports rubric—of someone exploring a topic and a way of writing about it, not someone who presents their text as a “paper”. We will encounter this kind of innovative voice in other papers published in the same rubric.

180 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU The paper published in the Heritage rubric, a stable one already in the journal, belongs to Gheorghe Bobână, and it is called Mircea Eliade and the Romanian Axiological Identity. It operates in the same logic of “heritage”, proposed by A. Babii in the first 1992 issue of the journal: taking the work of a philosopher and reclaiming it as belonging in some way to the space of Moldovan philosophy (explicitly perceived as part of the Romanian cultural space) and as relevant to the present moment. The text consists, mainly, in presenting Eliade’s theses on Romanian axiological identity. I will quote an excerpt in order to show how Bobână is doing it: The history of Romanians, as Mircea Eliade notices, does not know long periods of quiet: this is why the creative spirit could not manifest unless intermittently on the plane of written, scholarly culture. It manifests itself continuously and inexhaustibly only in the popular spiritual creation: only it reveals the constants of Romanian genius. (Bobână 2007: 133)

The voice present here is one of the historian of philosophy operating in the “heritage” logic—the voice of someone who reads and retells something which is part of a tradition they could claim, for various reasons, as “ours”, and most of the time subscribes to what they are retelling. The tone is self-effacing: in the paraphrase, for full paragraphs sometimes, there is no clear boundary between the voice of the quoted author and the voice of the one who is writing now—it is almost as if they merge into a single voice. A living philosopher borrowing their own voice to a dead one, deemed “worthy of attention”. Another take on the heritage logic is present in an article by Lidia Troianwoski published in the Scientific Life rubric of the journal (Troianowski, 2007b: 136–139)—a conference review of a symposium dedicated to Mircea Eliade’s 100th anniversary. According to her, A retrospective of the papers presented by the participants in the symposium shows us Mircea Eliade as one of the most representative figures of modernity; in this temporal span, few could compete with him: a person with an enviable intellectual level that made history, tradition, and religion rhyme; he valorized things, phenomena, views, emotions, and feelings that are worthy of consideration and which he offered, as a

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 181 compensation and, simultaneously, with dignity, to future generations. (Troianowski 2007b: 136)

What one can hear in such an account of the conference—the attitude claimed to be expressed by all the papers presented, and which is also transparent in the author’s own writing—sounds almost like ancestor worship, and can be paraphrased, slightly tongue-in-cheek, as: „We have this great figure in our past, and (almost) no one can compete with it; it is ours, and it expresses something meaningful for us; moreover, it left us a heritage that we cherish and which we gathered to celebrate.” The second 2007 issue of the Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science includes five philosophy papers—for of them, signed by PhDs, published in the rubric Philosophy, and one, by a PhD student—in the Research Reports section. The first philosophy paper published in this issue is Arcadi Ursul’s Third Millennium Law: Methodological Aspects (Ursul 2007a), written in Russian. Focusing on the concept of “sustainable development”, that he abbreviates using the initials of the words (SD), Ursul suggests that this concept has to become a central one for lawmakers, helping bridge “ecological” worries with a new vision of the state and of law. I will quote a passage: It is important to take into account the fact that any national law about SD has to be fundamentally different from any law that is already adopted or in the process of being adopted. It will signify a further step away from the traditional anthropocentric view the law system to a new, social-natural system, that was already started through the creation of ecologic law as a juridical way of realizing the ecological function of the state. The law will also have its own specific object of juridical regulation. Unlike ecological law, it has to give a juridical explanation not only to the ecological function of the state, but also to its other functions, from the point of view of their accomplishing of SD principles. Thus, it deals not just with an ‘ecological expansion’ of the framework of juridical regulation, but a law that, fundamentally, will become a trampoline between ecological law and all the other compartments of law and would ‘transform’ all other laws that were already passed. Thus, ecological law has an important role in ‘transitioning’ contemporary law to the future SD law. [...] The ecological function of law, in the concepts, principles, and rules of law, has to become a unitary whole with other aspects of SD. (Ursul 2007: 12)

182 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU The paper illustrates the discursive position of the philosopher as an “unsolicited advisor” for lawmakers proposing a new legal framework and fundamental concepts for it to work under the guise of an analysis. The voice of the philosopher affirms this discursive position through a kind of confidence in what he is saying, expressed through the imperative mood, and the supposed discerning of the future signification of laws of the type he is describing. The shift towards a form of law based on sustainable development is presented as a desirable one, and the philosopher— as its lobbyist, one who understands why it should be adopted, what are its meaning and fundamental concepts, what is the relation between this proposed lawmaking paradigm and previous ones, etc. Presenting oneself in such a way, the philosopher becomes an expert figure, working on the assumption of philosophy as a special kind of knowledge that justifies one in saying “what is important” and “what has to be done”. The second paper included in this issue is Ana Pascaru’s Relation and Motivation in Social Values Conditioning (Pascaru 2007). The author proposes an analysis of the relation between social change and values, in the context of the post-Soviet societies and their increased openness to other cultures. According to the author, the post-Soviet transition generated a certain lack of sensitivity to transformations/changes that were already taking place, leading to what she considers confused decisions and actions. Like other papers published in the same year—and as the title shows—values are a fundamental concept for this paper too: … beyond the theoretical debates about national values as an element of the general-human ones, in the community environment there are various perturbations of the value circuit in the dynamics between national and general-human values, and quite often non-values tend to substitute values. Moreover, the crisis of values overlaps with the other crises to which communities are subjected, a fact that facilitates the imposition of nonvalues in the behavior and actions of the members of society. (Pascaru 2007: 16)

Or

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 183 The values of the majority ethnicity did not manage to become the attraction center for the national minorities and to ensure the communication between national values and the general-human ones. (Pascaru 2007: 18)

The predominance of the values discourse—and the attribution of values to a group/community (“a national minority”, “a nation”, or even “general human values” as attributed to “humanity as such”)—in the philosophical papers published in the Journal might be read as an attempt to find a topic which would not be claimed by other disciplines, a place that a philosopher could inhabit comfortably and, at the same time, speak to what they consider relevant for the society. Addressing the question of values becomes, thus, a way for philosophers to present themselves as philosophers while speaking about social issues. With the exception of (Șaptefrați 2007), Moldovan philosophers working on this topic present themselves as knowing what is a “true” value, able to make a difference between “value” and “non-value”, and propose hierarchies of values. A similar attitude towards values is expressed in a continuation of (Troianowski 2007a)—Aesthetic Values: Globalization Versus Universality (II) (Troianowski 2007c). The author continues her diatribe against postmodernism, using an accusatory rhetorical move: Having its roots in the proto-fascist philosophy of M. Heidegger, postmodernism adopts with nonchalance the idea of a lack of moral truth and of truth in general. Oriented towards destructing traditional normative systems and laws, a flagrant violation of canons, excelling in its already compromised intent of modeling the world and emphasizing the negative in the plane of reason, postmodernism destroys hierarchies, generating/encouraging chaos and grotesque. This phenomenon criticizes traditional values, rationalism, humanism, historicism, it denies the personality’s possibility of being responsible for its own acts, decisions, and behavior, and the human individual’s capacity to oppose the social-political and ideological stereotypes. In opposition with the traditional and with modernism, postmodernism insistently postulates the importance of freeing oneself from the force of power, discharging norms, rules, social dependence, with skepticism, relativism, and nihilist tendencies being its peremptory particularities. On this ground, we consider that postmodernism has to be viewed as a diagnosis of contemporary culture, not as its actual state. (Troianowski 2007c: 22)

184 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU Again, we see the philosopher in the role of “cultural critic” and “defender of values” in face of their “destruction” by “postmodernism”. We can notice the medicalized language, like in the phrase “postmodernism as diagnosis”; or the implicit accusation of totalitarianism, when the claim is made that postmodernism has its roots in the “proto-fascist philosophy of M. Heidegger”, which is a way of claiming that something of its “proto-fascist” character has been “inherited”; and the fact that the author is deploring the loss/destruction of “traditional values” and the “uniformization” of artistic products in mass culture. In a sense, this “defense of values” is also functioning in the logic of heritage: heritage itself (“traditional values”, “traditional normative systems and laws”) is deemed as “that which needs to be protected” from the threat of its destruction through the attitude of a break with tradition, identified with postmodernism (oddly opposed in this to modernism—also as a rhetorical move; both traditionalism and modernism are deemed acceptable, while postmodernism should be, according to the author, regarded as a diagnosis). Valeriu Capcelea, in his paper Functions of Social Norms (Capcelea 2007b), proposes a review of functions of social norms, trying to construct a “systemic picture” of them, proposing a series of theses on how social norms work and their functions. A representative excerpt: Social norms as means and forms of expressing deontic representations and reflecting the deontic sphere of social consciousness determine the fact that personality development happens in a deontic situation. Personality development happens in a situation of interactions and communication. Any interaction and communication is ensured, regulated, grounded by the system of social norms, realizing these processes depending on various functions of social norms. Social norms in general and norms of a social group, in particular, ensure the existence, functionality of the group, the inclusion of the individual in that group, in the process and mechanisms of its interaction. The norms of the social group are used not only for regulating the intrinsic behavior and contacts, interactions, and interpersonal relations, but also for transforming interpersonal interactions in a normative behavior in that group, community, or society. (Capcelea, 2007b: 36)

In this paper, the voice is, again, that of the philosopher-as-expert— as the one who knows, due to their special background, how things really

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 185 operate—and tries to present a picture of it to their readers. The author’s own commitments, encouraging the perpetuation of certain forms of social behavior, become “desirable outcomes” and “functions of social norms”. The last philosophy paper published in the second issue for 2007 is included in the Research Reports rubric and belongs to the PhD student Carolina Cheianu: Criteria for a Classification and Hierarchy of Values in Tudor Vianu and Lucian Blaga (Cheianu 2007). The author reviews, in the first page of her paper, various ideas about value classification, and then focuses on two 20th Century Romanian philosophers—Tudor Vianu and Lucian Blaga1—and their theories about values. The tone that the authors adopts is one of speaking with explicitly accepting the point of view of the author she is treating and stating it approvingly. I will quote an example: Proposing a series of criteria for grouping values, Vianu proves that each value is inscribed in a rational system of coordination, that indicates clearly the place they occupy in a values hierarchy. A value can be real or personal, material or spiritual, free or adhering to its concrete support, persevering or amplifying through its meaning and echo in the desired subject’s consciousness. According to these criteria, the philosopher characterizes each category of values in an equivalent succession. Approaching the topic of value structures, together with the great philosopher T. Vianu, we seek the answer to the fundamental axiological problem, i.e. what is the nature of values? According to him, values do not become to an absolute rationality, because they are an object of desire and encompass in their interiority elements that surpass the sphere of rationality. The philosopher recognizes that inside the rational sphere of each value its irrational nucleus is hiding. This means that deep inside values there are particular elements that can be reduced to general factors. The nucleus of values is unclassifiable. This nucleus ensures the unicity and irreducibility of each value. Thus it can be explained why two types of values, apparently similar—the moral value and the religious one–profoundly differ in their essence. (Cheianu 2007: 141)

I should mention that the paper also operates in the heritage logic: the two Romanian philosophers the author is writing about are regarded as elements of heritage—supposed to be reintegrated into the Moldovan philosophical scene as part of what was neglected/insufficiently studied. The voice is, again, one of a reverent

1

Both of them are influential aestheticians and literary figures too.

186 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU adherent: “approaching the topic… together with the great philosopher... according to him”. The third 2007 issue of the Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science included four philosophy papers—two of them, by already established researchers, published in the Philosophy section, and two papers by PhD students. The first paper published in the Philosophy rubric is a continuation of (Ursul 2007a)—Third Millennium Law: Methodological Aspects (II) (Ursul 2007b). The author argues that, for sustainable development, a reconceptualization of fundamental concepts of law is needed, and he tries to point out aspects of this reconceptualization. The voice he is constructing is, once again, that of the philosopher as expert—the possessor of a specific kind of knowledge that enables the seeing of what is needed now, and the offering of a response to it—a suggestion of “what needs to be changed” in the light of what was noticed. The second paper is Vasile Guțu’s Eloquence and Argumentation in Plato (Guțu 2007). It should be mentioned that, out of all the papers published in the Philosophy rubric of the journal in the years analyzed in the current article (Guțu, 2007), is the only one that mentions a non-Moldovan philosopher in the title.2 In this paper, the philosopher positions himself not just as someone who reclaims the local heritage, but someone who does history of (universal) philosophy as such. The paper starts with an overview of the Ancient Greek social context that led to interest in argumentation and rhetoric, passing then to Plato’s work. The author analyzes the explicit attitude about rhetoricians and sophists in dialogues like Gorgias or The Sophist, proposing then an analysis of the Socratic method of dialogue itself, with an emphasis on its “purification” function, and ending with a positive appraisal of the role of sophists as those who pioneered the study of argumentation and an argumentative ethos:

2

Papers mentioning Romanian/Moldovan philosophers like Sturdza, Eliade, Vianu, and Blaga appeared, during the years analyzed in the present paper, in other rubrics—either Heritage, or the PhD students’ Research Reports

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 187 An especially important role of the Hellenic sophists is the fact that they shattered the grounds of the traditional, dogmatic thinking, whose pillars were considered the authorities of the time. Sophists were not in the least satisfied with the responses of authorities or with dogmatic interpretations. They were requesting that an orator’s claims be proven, be argued for, and theoretically grounded. All these contributed to an enlivening of thinking, contributed to an escape from the lethargic state of dogmatic thinking. (Guțu 2007: 19)

This is the first appearance, in the Journal, of a philosophical voice that does history of philosophy with no explicit problematization of “contemporary issues”, operating outside the logic of heritage and outside the values controversy, proposing a partial reading of classic texts and an appraisal of an avowed anti-traditionalist movement. The two philosophy papers by PhD students published in the Research Reports section are also atypical, compared to the rest of the papers. The first of them, by Nicolae Bodean, bears the title The Role of the Economic Factor in the Creation and Manifestation of Nation and Nationalism (Bodean 2007) and it attempts to analyze, from a political economy point of view, the influence of various factors on the rise of nations and nationalism since the 19th Century. The voice continues to be one of the philosophers as an expert—constructing an authority through stating “facts” and proposing explanations— but the difference from other papers consists in the fact that the discursive position is a consciously theoretical one, not one of a “defender of values” or of “counselor”: In order to explain why individuals want to engage in nationalist activities, we will start from the following matters of fact: first—most participants in nationalist activities claim that living together with other nationalities presents challenges or prevents the nation’s self-expression, destroying its identity; second—sometimes national groups seem to accept “cohabitating” with other national groups only if they hold “power”, lead the country; third—sometimes people sacrifice their wealth and life in their fight for national identity and power. (Bodean 2007: 101)

So, at least in part, the philosophical voice is one of noticing, stating what can be regarded as obvious—in order to formulate an explanation from a theoretical position. One thing a reader can notice is the presence of qualifications like “most” or

188 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU “sometimes”—even if, in other places, the author returns to a more confident voice, speaking in terms of “direct consequence of...” and “only if”: The nationalization of economic policy was a direct consequence of the extension of national aspirations for the benefit of the whole population. An international order would have been compatible with the national order only if the economy was apolitical. When attention to social aspects substituted the concept of laissez faire, the global single economy was substituted by a multitude of national economies, each nation being preoccupied with the welfare of its own members. (Bodean 2007: 98)

Another PhD student publishing in that year is Andrei Perciun, who authored a paper called Philosophical Considerations Regarding a Noema of Photographic Image (Perciun 2007: 104–110). The main part of the paper is a reading of Roland Barthes’ Camera Lucida— focusing on a single work being an atypical discursive strategy for most of the papers that we analyzed. Another atypical thing that can be noticed is the fact that the work analyzed belongs to a 20th Century foreign author. Moreover, it is the only paper that presents quotes in the original language (French), without translation: Barthes tries to measure the degree of verisimilarity of the visual image by analyzing in detail a photography in which his aged mother is represented. Barthes’ game is interpretatively involved in vectorial reasoning about time. Presentifying an unlived past, the paradox of an unowned one’s own is reached: “Ce n’était pas elle, et pourtant ce n’ était personne d’autre”. At the same time, the perceived image remains particularly true, and generally false; differentiating itself in order to recognize identity, the photographic image remains inessential under the aspect of present reality. The visual image’s challenge focuses on the “as if” moment, akin to the definition of a dream. This induces to the gullible consciousness a tempting adventure that unfolds between a knowing and a seeing of reality. Knowing, in the true sense of the word, gradually dissolves, with a serious exuberance, in a circular game of time, reality, and being. Thus, Godard’s formula is reached, “Pas une image juste, juste une image”, where the visual image moves away from the seemingly so desired scientific truth. (Perciun 2007: 108)

The discursive position inhabited by the voice is that of a reflective reader: a reader that engages with the text, quotes and paraphrases it, trying to grasp what is it about and as what its topic is presented: a first attempt to use another’s thinking as the medium for engaging with a topic, in this case—the status of the photographic image.

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 189 Generalizing about the papers published in 2007, we can notice a first distinction between established researchers and PhD students, a difference of topics and of discursive strategies they use. Most of the papers published in the Philosophy section dealt, in one way or another, with the topic of values, and most of the authors assumed an already given hierarchy of values and the role of “defenders of the tradition” (with the notable exception of the more relativist and quietist Șaptefrați), operating in the logic of “heritage” and extending it from reclaiming authors of the past to maintaining the “values heritage of the nation”. At the same time, out of the papers by PhD students, published in the Research Reports section, two of them deal with 20th Century European philosophy, and are written either with an essayistic tone, or from the position of reflectively engaging with a single work; one of them consciously assumes a theoretical position—political economy—and tries to make sense of “noticed matters of fact” from its perspective; and one is integrated both in the “heritage discourse” and in the “values discourse”, trying to speak together with the “great philosophers included in the heritage” and to present their ideas about values to a contemporary audience.

A Philosophical Journal: A Philosophical Community The space in which the transformation of philosophical discourse in the Republic of Moldova during the last 30 years becomes obvious is the main (partly) philosophical journal of the country, published initially under the aegis of the Academy of Sciences, and currently, after the Academy was restructured and its institutes became formally autonomous, by the Institute for Juridical, Political, and Sociological Research. Accordingly, the title of the journal changed over the years, depending on its subordination and on the fields of research in which the institute coordinating and issuing it was active: Journal of Philosophy and Law (issued by the Institute for Philosophy and Law, as it was called during 1991– 2006), and Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science (issued by the inheritor of the former institute—called in various ways, after subsequent reforms, depending on the subdivisions it

190 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU was including: Institute of Philosophy, Sociology, and Law; Institute of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science; Institute of European Integration and Political Science; Institute for Political and Sociological Research; Institute for Juridical, Political, and Sociological Research). It should be noted that, since 2009, there is no institute that includes the word “philosophy” in its title; moreover, the philosophy section—composed currently of 7 researchers—formerly part of the institute that issues the journal, is, since 2013, part of the Institute of History. The Journal of Philosophy and ...—as one might jokingly call it in order to emphasize the continuity—shows, just through its title, the way philosophy is positioned in Moldovan academia: a discipline among others, the links it has with these other disciplines having more to do with the institutional subordination (or the memory of former institutional ties, since 2013) than with any intrinsic sympathy or commonality of approach. For reasons of institutional tradition, philosophy still has priority of place, though, in the title of the journal, even if, for quite a long time already, the philosophy sector has a different institutional affiliation than the rest of the disciplines currently included in the title. The central role of this journal for Moldova’s philosophical community is due to a phenomenon that derives from the Soviet period, and still determines a fracture in the academic community: people who work in universities mainly teach, people who work in research institutes mainly do research. Accordingly, there is much less pressure to publish among Moldovan lecturers, since their main task is teaching and publishing course materials; when they do publish research papers, they mainly do it in collections of conference papers or in the various series of the annual Studia Universitatis Moldavie (which has no specialized philosophy section: philosophy papers are published in the “Humanistic Sciences” fascicle). On the other hand, people who work in the institutes are (informally) required to publish in the academic journals coordinated by the institutes they work for; there is even an informal pressure to publish at least one paper a year there, regardless of if they publish other papers in foreign journals or in collections of conference papers or not. The journal becomes, this

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 191 way, both the space that receives the written output of people who specialize in academic philosophy, and an institution that requires this written output from researchers, in order to perpetuate its existence and to justify the researchers’ employment at the institution that issues the said journal. This double status of the journal—as exercising a kind of attraction for researchers, lecturers, and PhD students wanting to publish in the only (partly) philosophical journal of the country, and as pressuring researchers and PhD students to publish there— contributes to giving it a special place in the construction of a Moldovan philosophical discourse and philosophical voice. As a space in which short- to medium-length papers are published, it was, for 30 years, the main field in which (would-be) philosophers explored what a (post-? non-? Soviet) philosophical paper should look like, how would a (post-? non-? Soviet) philosophical voice sound, what are the acceptable topics (would the journal accept this for publication?), what are the acceptable discursive positions (how present an author should be in their text? are they present despite their attempts to be impersonal? does explicit commitment to certain values leak into the voice the paper is written in?). Another advantage offered by a journal like this is the ability to investigate most of the relevant “yearly philosophical output” of a (small, post-Soviet) country “at a glance”. This is what I will attempt in the present paper: a synchronic examination of the 25 philosophy papers published in the Journal of Philosophy and... in two key years, 1992 and 2007. 1992 was the first year after state independence was declared, also the year the journal itself came into its own as Journal of Philosophy and Law; 2007—the year the institute issuing it changed its name, so the journal became Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science, the title it bears until now. I will pay attention, first of all, to the attempts to construct (and define) a philosophical voice, to the discursive stance that is cultivated in these papers, to explicit commitments the author is taking; in the type of reading that I propose here, the topics themselves, although important, are secondary to the attempt itself to write philosophy freely while the authors are finding out for themselves what writing philosophy means at all. I will quote at

192 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU length from the papers I will analyze, usually in my translation (except for the abstracts, originally in English), in order to illustrate the phenomena I am examining. After these two synchronic analyses, I will point out the evolution of certain trends that are also present currently in Moldovan philosophical discourse—having survived since their first formulation in 1992—as well as the emergent divergence from them in the work of, mainly, PhD students.

1992: Reclaiming “Heritage” The first issue of the Journal of Philosophy and Law, published in 1992, includes four rubrics: Philosophy; Law; Comments on Current Legislation; Reviews. There are three papers published with the rubric Philosophy. Two of them are written in Romanian, one in Russian. All the papers include an abstract in 2 languages: English and Russian. Given the fact that Russian is the lingua franca of the post-Soviet space, and English—of the Western academic community, the symbolic value of this choice is obvious—the editors of the journal see as their audience both the post-Soviet and the Western community, and the abstracts are perceived as possible ways of access for potentially interested researchers. The first paper, authored by Panteleimon M. Varzari, bears the title Production and Man: The Creative Potential of the Personality in the Sphere of Work. The paper is dedicated to various “changes in the sphere of work”—for example, the phenomenon of unemployment, newly established in law—correlated with the “transformation of personality”. I will quote the last paragraph of the paper: From what has been said, we can conclude that the formation and consolidation of a free personality can take place only when it can fully manifest its innate capabilities and accumulated skills. Of course, it has to do with their revealing and realization in the main sphere of activity that man has–the sphere of work. But this process can unfold in an easier way if the agents of economic units will have optimal work conditions, if social problems of production will be solved together with other major problems in the interest of workers. Only in this case humanism will express human dignity as a supreme value and as a general goal of social progress. And this will condition an interested attitude of workers towards their work, a raise in production markers, and, as a consequence, a quick sanitation of national

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 193 economy aiming at the continuous improvement of the population’s living standards and its prosperity. (Varzari 1992: 12)

What can one notice, based on reading a paragraph like this, 30 years later? First, “work”, in a Marxist framework, is perceived as the “main sphere of human activity”. Reflecting about work and about the desirable “free personality” leads to what I think is essential for the construction of a certain voice, expressed here: a reflection about “what should be done” by “economic agents”, by the government, and by society in general. The second thing I would point out is the categorical tone, expressed through “only”— present two times in the paragraph: “only when...” and “only in this case”. So, as what does the philosopher speak? As one who knows what should be done, who has confidence in what can happen (and can predict what will happen), and knows that this will happen “only when” certain conditions will be in place—and as one who points out what these conditions should be in order to reach a desired future, the “continuous improvement of living standards and prosperity”, with the possibility of establishing dignity as a “supreme value”. We can retain this futural orientation and confidence in one’s seeing, together with the confidence that certain things can happen one way only. We will encounter them again, in other papers. The second philosophy paper published in this first issue of the journal is History of Philosophy Research in Moldova. Accomplishments and Perspectives, by Alexandru I. Babii. My claim is that it anticipates and contains, in nuce, most of the subsequent developments in Moldovan philosophy, and here I would just quote and analyze several relevant portions. The first one establishes the concept of heritage as a way of conceptualizing the past and, as we shall see, it becomes an essential framework for Moldovan philosophical discourse: Currently, in the spiritual life of our society, one can notice an increasing interest in knowing the past in general and the past of our Homeland in particular. This fact can be understood in its totality if we seriously entertain

194 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU the thesis that that the grandeur of the jump towards future, that finds an adequate expression in the process of society’s subsequent development, also determines the need to take into account, in as realistic a way as possible, the lessons of the past, as well as the appeal to history as a collective memory of the nation. In the process of realizing these necessities, the task that appear in front of the science of history of philosophy are of enormous importance, because the past, in the totality of its manifestations, cannot be conceived without a deep knowledge of philosophy, which, according to Marx, represents a “spiritual quintessence of the period”. Thus, a deep interest in the spiritual heritage of the past results, conceived by larger circles of the society as a real phenomenon of national culture. The valorization of our cultural heritage, including the philosophical one, requires us to distinguish the concepts of “heritage” and “continuity”. “Heritage” can be assessed as a characteristic of the totality of the social results of human activity, constituting the base of contemporary culture’s social memory. “Continuity” is the totality of meanings that “heritage” acquires as it is appropriated by the culture. As it seems, meaning has to be understood as the capacity of a cultural phenomenon to respond to a certain question that preoccupies contemporary culture. If a certain monument of past culture cannot satisfy any of the actual necessities of contemporary culture, from the latter’s point of view, it loses any meaning, becomes devoid of content. The task of the history of philosophy consists not just in discovering philosophical monuments of the past, but also in renewing the basis of social memory, as well as revealing the whole complexity of the multitude of meanings of monuments that it researches, in various cultural contexts. Unfortunately, in the real practice of historical-philosophical investigations, this problem was not given its due attention, a fact which caused certain vicissitudes. (Babii 1992: 13–14)

I quoted extensively, because this passage reads like a manifesto for doing a certain type of history of philosophy—one that Babii argues was neglected during Soviet times (and presents several reasons for its neglect). Before going into further details with the analysis of this paper, I would like to point out several aspects of what is going on in this passage:  

The voice of the philosopher becomes that of “someone who notices” and reflects on what can be noticed; What one does—performs—when something is noticed is “making distinctions”, as an essential philosophical discursive move (in the case of this paragraph—”heritage” and “continuity”);

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 195  





Based on the “noticings” and on “distinctions”, the philosopher can be able to formulate a “task”; The history of philosophy is seen as having to do with what is presented as “heritage”—“monuments” that can have meaning for the present—and with revealing the meaningfulness they have in the present context—the present questions to which something found in the past can be relevant; A neutral reference to Marx is used as a legitimation for focusing on the history of philosophy—one might hypothesize that this is either a habit from the times when quoting Marx was compulsory, or a way to abate criticism from Marxists that would question his view, maybe even a way to “save the living core of Marx” from his dogmatic interpreters (although saying this might be an overinterpretation); This task is presented as having to do with “social progress”, the “jump into the future”; Babii’s insisting on the “lessons of the past” as having a special importance are the ones that emphasize, in his view, the importance of the history of philosophy—as that which helps with finding “meanings” in a whole layer of “monuments of the past” that were neglected due to “vicissitudes”.

The vicissitudes he mentions—the problems with research in the history of philosophy in Moldova—are due to … the general state of philosophical science in the Soviet Union, determined by a long domination of certain anti-scientific and non-scientific views that consolidated themselves in our country in the period of Stalinism and stagnation. (Babii 1992: 15)

Then, Babii goes on to present a list of the problems he identified, deriving from “an indifferent, cowardly, and limited dogmatism that was clawing its way in the philosopher’s soul, killing any embryo of a fresh idea” (Babii 1992: 15): 

The fact that the history of philosophy was perceived as a struggle between materialism and idealism, without taking

196 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU







 

into account the local specifics and leading to exclusions of authors; The “narrow class approach” that led to “manic attacks” and to “dividing all thinkers in two classes: the ones who were right and the ones who were wrong”; Emphasizing the Russian and Ukrainian influence and neglecting the Romanian context of philosophical work carried by Moldovan thinkers; The lack of a properly philosophical training of researchers; the fact that, in doctoral training programs, what was encouraged was reading a single author, who often did not even self-identify as a philosopher, and neglecting all others, including the history of philosophy of other nations; The lack of specialists that would be familiar with classical languages; The lack of critical editions, including the fact that, at that moment in 1992, there were no complete published works of any Moldovan philosopher.

This list of “problems” included in Babii’s “manifesto”, together with the ethos that he proposed—a reverent attitude towards the “heritage” in an attempt to “recover” it—continues to shape Moldovan philosophy at the present moment too. We can note, especially, the insistence on the concept of “heritage”—which has become a shibboleth in the Moldovan philosophical community, being used (as we shall see) as a title for journal rubrics, conferences, book collections, etc. The manifesto tone of this article, in an attempt to mark a break with the “vicissitudes” of the Soviet era (but, at the same time, insisting on “not neglecting the work that was done even then”) can be read as an attempt to create a new philosophical voice—the voice, we might say, of the philosopher as “aware of the task that is imposed to him by the subject matter he chooses”—the “philosophical heritage” that he is supposed to recover, publish, and where he is supposed to discover “meanings” that he can offer to his present community. The last paper published in this issue under the rubric Philosophy belongs to S. C. Pahopol. It is written in Russian and

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 197 bears the title The Culture of Marriage-Family Relationships. I will quote the abstract first: In the paper, based on statistical and sociological data, taking into account the specific development of the family in Moldova, we analyze its critical situation and the culture of family relations. The latter are characterized as being determined, first of all, by social conditions. At the same time, we specify certain actions that are required in order to raise the cultural level of these relations. (Pahopol 1992: 37)

Reading the abstract, one might question what is specifically philosophical about an approach such as this one. In a sense, this is the product of taking institutional affiliation of a person as that which defines what they do: if they belong to the philosophy section of a Philosophy and Law institute, what they do should count as philosophy, regardless of what it is that they do—an empirical research, in this case, together with recommendations such as: Relationships in a cultured family can be benevolent, calm, the motives for tensions will be eliminated, hidden and obvious grudges will diminish, if the financial situation will be resolved as well. The latter changes substantially the psychological climate in families. (Pahopol 1992: 33)

Or The spouses that respect themselves and others usually evaluate in a selfcritical way their own behavior, accommodate each other, find a way to make concessions, not with the appearance of an offended victim, but with benevolence, because they understand: this way it is going to be better, calmer, more comfortable and more useful for both of us, for the family. (Pahopol 1992: 34)

Leaving aside the question whether this would “count” as philosophical writing—it was published in the Philosophy rubric of the journal, after all—what is the most striking is the normative tone of the paper. The author presents an idealized image of “how a cultured family interacts” and, based on responses to questionnaires and other data, points out various issues in family relationships. Even within the normative image of “how a good family should look like”, Pahopol still challenges what is regarded as a “traditional” model of a family, speaking, instead, of a

198 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU “cultured”, “egalitarian”, and “democratic” one—describing it and proposing it as desirable. So, the voice of “the one who recommends a model”, “the one who offers something as this-iswhat-it-should-ideally-look-like”. The second 1992 issue of the Journal of Philosophy and Law includes four articles published under the rubric Philosophy. The first of these, signed by Petru M. Rumleanschi and Vasile A. Țapoc, bears the title Fundamental Principles of Human Knowledge and Their Role in Scientific Creation. I will quote the abstract, originally in English: The article deals with the essence of the basic principles of the human knowledge applied both to scientific and non-scientific knowledge. The role of the reflection, activity and continuity principles as well as dialectic opposition in the human creation is researched. These principles, according to the authors’ opinion, are sufficient for the scientific system analysis of creation in the limits of the general theory of creation. (Rumleanschi & Țapoc 1992: 11)

The paper contains a general account of what the authors call “the principle of reflection”, “the principle of activity”, and “the principle of continuity”, presented as “fundamental principles of knowledge”. We can notice the schematism of Rumleanschi and Țapoc’s attempt, as well as the ambition to present “the fundamental principles of human knowledge” (the definite article shows the degree of conviction about these three “principles” and their status) and how they are applied to “scientific creation” in an 8-page paper. In a sense, an attempt like this one expresses a deeply-seated confidence in what philosophy can accomplish, and, again, a confidence in the philosopher’s knowledge. The voice of this paper is one that states how things are, with an optimistic epistemology and with confidence in its own abilities—almost surprising for a newly-”freed” field, like philosophy was perceived to be at that moment. The second paper published in this issue is authored by the Romanian academic Alexandru Boboc—Philosophy and Value System in the “Enlightenment” Culture (Boboc 1992). As a paper by a Romanian author, referring to the Enlightenment message and its reception in the Romanian space, it would say very little about the

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 199 formation of a post-Soviet Moldovan philosophical voice. Its publication can be regarded more as a rekindling of historical connections.3 The publication of a Romanian colleague’s work is intended to illustrate, if we refer to A. Babii’s manifesto/program that I previously analyzed, a way of relating to the heritage, being itself a symbolic way of reclaiming (by Moldovans) the Romanian heritage. Gheorghe Bobână’s paper, “Pro fide et patria” in Petru Movilă’s View (Bobână 1992), illustrates the same attitude: a way of reclaiming as “Moldovan philosophical heritage” the work of Petru Movilă/Petro Mogila, regarded here as an author relevant for Moldovan/Romanian philosophy. The paper focuses on a historical description of Mogila’s work, presenting his advocacy for equal rights for Orthodox, Catholic, and other Christian denominations. The paper itself is, together with Boboc’s, a way of fulfilling Babii’s program of a version of doing history of philosophy focusing on “reclaiming a heritage” neglected during the Soviet era—both from a thematic point of view and because the historical figure itself was contested. The discursive posture, as in Boboc’s case, is that of the philosopher as reader and expositor of previous material, maybe with a tinge of evaluation—emphasizing the “importance” of what was said by the authors they analyze. The final paper (in Russian) published in this issue is I. F. Sârbu’s Some Philosophical Problems of General Ecology (Sârbu 1992). The philosophical voice/posture is closer to Rumleanschi and Țapoc’s in the same issue: presenting a “new” topic—ecology in this case—without any explicit reference to Marxist dogma, speaking, in 10 pages, about “general ecology”, “human ecology”, and “social ecology”, and “what should these disciplines focus on/study”. We can notice, again, a certain confidence that the author knows what the task is for a discipline—and casually presents it for their readers. A deeply-seated enthusiasm and confidence in the

3

Moldovans being ethnic Romanians and speaking Romanian—a fact that was denied/questioned during the Soviet times; publishing a Romanian author is clearly intended as a way of recreating a bridge between the Romanian culture and the post-Soviet Moldovan one.

200 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU possibility of a philosophical discourse marks, thus, the philosophical voices of the first two 1992 issues: it is possible to say what “should” be the case, how reality “should” look like, and what philosophy “should” do. And, at least for the history of philosophy, the initial task is clear and already assumed: reclaiming the neglected “heritage”. The third 1992 issue of the Journal of Philosophy and Law marks a slight change in philosophical voice—the appearance of a more polemic tone, with explicit reference to a set of values that is “supported”, “defended”, or “promoted”. The first example of this is a paper by Alexandru Roșca—Man as a Subject of Social Action (Roșca 1992). Roșca starts from the idea that, in the Soviet times, “man” was neglected, leading to the phenomenon of homo sovieticus and to a certain lack of creativity. According to him, … we need a fundamentally new point of view on the problem of relations between man and society, a realistic approach of the interaction between the social determinants and the personal factor, between the objective conditions and human subjectivity, between objectifying and subjectifying acts in the social process. (Roșca 1992: 6)

We can notice, again, a construction of the voice of the philosopher as “the one who knows what we need”–and using classic dichotomies to frame his view of the situation. This scheme leads Roșca to say, at a later point in the paper, Leaving behind the old univocal approaches, that instituted the absolute priority of society over personality, of the collectivity over the individual, it is important to not turn altogether in the direction of a totalitarian Robinson, of a mad individualism, of the man stuck in his existence and thrown in the opposite direction. It is necessary to not pass from the individual’s depersonalization in the conditions of the old norms to the disintegration and annihilation of society as a result of its reckless transformation. (Roșca 1992: 9)

The philosopher becomes here “the warning voice”, the one who is anticipating possibilities of a “dark future” if “we” decide “recklessly” to go to the “other extreme” than the Soviet collectivist way of being. The topoi that the philosopher is using for creating a persuasive effect are actually typical for propaganda: painting something in dark colors by using evocative language: “totalitarian

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 201 Robinson”, “mad individualism”, imagining even the “disintegration and annihilation of society”, whatever this might mean, as something possible if “we” turn towards “mad individualism”. The philosopher as a voice presenting a dark future unless “we” do what he is saying—and what he is saying involves not leaving behind what was “good” about Soviet times in jumping towards a new mode of being without questioning it at first. The next article of this issue, by Lidia Trofăilă, Divergences in the Family: Social-Psychological Aspect (Trofăilă 1992) continues the ambiguity of (Pahopol 1992): a paper published under the rubric Philosophy, but presenting itself more like a social science one. The paper presents, on the basis on questionnaires, sources of conflicts in 25 couples and proposes ways to “neutralize divergences”, such as: 





Neglecting the non-essential divergences, because their sharpening in unwanted situations could create misunderstandings between the spouses, would create conflict situations; Both spouses’ effort to help each other in self-perfection, in the tendency to solve all their divergences with benevolence, without hurting personal dignity; Emphasizing, in any situation, the best, the essential in the spouse’s behavior (Trofăilă 1992: 15).

Leaving aside one more time the question of whether this is “philosophy proper”, and the content itself, we notice, again, that the voice embodied in this paper is presenting a certain behavior as “desirable”, thus, construing itself as “the voice of one who knows how things should be”. A different kind of questioning voice appears in a paper written in Russian by V. I. Anikin, Metamorphoses of Social Justice (The Humanistic Aspect) (Anikin 1992). The context in which the paper is written is put in the following way: Currently, we claim, everyday practice proposes as a primordial task redefining the concept itself of social justice, its turning towards the human, towards his nature, interest, and necessities. (Anikin 1992: 16)

202 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU We notice, again, the language of “tasks” imposed by “reality”— the philosopher being presented implicitly as the one who notices the current reality and can formulate the task deriving from it. Then, Anikin continues: First of all, the powerful pressure of collectivist ideology affected human individuality itself, the social essence of the human was unjustifiably overvalued, his biological necessity was not taken into account, and neither were his personal interests and necessities, which led, in the end, to a levelling of individuality. As we know, attention to personality, its interests and feelings, in official science were equated with the so-called bourgeois individualism and almost with a betrayal of the proletarian cause. Thus, for decades, according to the authorities’ decree, the biological essence of man was gradually excluded from the masses’ consciousness, and in the relation between biological individuality and social justice the first was basically ignored. But, in the end, people could not stop themselves from asking: how can one live in harmony with the community (the collective, the society) without being in harmony with oneself, or how can one be a natural part of a whole if you are not an autonomous cell of that whole? (Anikin 1992: 17).

The philosophical posture here is different from all the papers that we saw previously. First of all, it lacks the pretense of a special kind of “knowing”: the knowing belongs to a “we”—a community of people who can notice. The philosopher’s reflection is not about a special knowledge, more about questioning something that was taken for granted. Due to various conditions, it stopped being taken for granted and the community itself started questioning it—so the philosopher deepens this questioning and examines what were the conditions that made the “we” take it for granted, and what were the conditions that led to its stopping being taken for granted. In the process, the meaning of the concept itself (“social justice”, in this case) is questioned. The orientation towards the (then recent) past is critical; Anikin presents the general attitude of the Soviet times as problematic. But, at the same time, he points out the critique as something that arose naturally for people who start questioning. Here, the philosopher as “the one who takes up reflectively a line of questioning already present in the society and deepens it” makes their appearance.

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 203 The last article published in 1992 in the Journal inaugurates a new rubric, responding to Babii’s initial program: From the Philosophical Heritage. The paper is coauthored by A. Babii and Emil T. Vrabie (Babii & Vrabie 1992) and appears under the title A Study Worthy of Attention. In the logic of “reclaiming heritage”, it is the first republishing of an article by a 19th Century Moldovan philosopher, Alexandru Scarlat Sturdza, Ideal and Imitation in Fine Arts, with a short introduction where a biography of the author is presented, together with the assessment of Sturdza’s “ideas”. The authors don’t hesitate to call some of them “justified” and others “mistaken”, but they claim that the justified ones “constitute, compared to the ideas of his predecessors, something new in Russian and Moldovan aesthetic thinking and, as such, they deserve to be studied and known. A part of them did not lose their actuality even in our days” (Babii & Vrabie 1992: 32). We can see here the logic of “heritage” operating: a given text of the past is presented as having something new to say compared to other texts. The fact itself of newness is one reason for studying it, the other being its relevance for contemporaneity. The value of the text depends, in the eyes of a historian of philosophy who operates in the logic of “heritage”, on both of these, to which, implicitly, previous neglect of that text or the risk of its not being brought to the attention of the public is added. What is asked for by the title itself of the presentation is attention—the fact of reading it, presumably, and maybe engaging with its ideas. The presence of the adjective “worthy” functions as a proposal for the potential readers to read it and engage with it—and the reasons why it is considered “worthy of attention” are presented in the short study that accompanies the republication. The main one remains implicit: it is “ours”, it can be claimed by “us”. So, a new philosophical posture: the philosopher/historian of philosophy that finds in the past of a community something that they consider worthy of attention for the present audience, republishes it, and comments on what makes it worthy. Generalizing, on the basis of this reading, we find, in 1992, three main philosophical voices/postures:

204 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU 1) The philosopher as the one who “knows what should be done/what will happen/what is really happening” and presents their “answer” as normative for the audience. 2) The philosopher as reflective questioner/one who takes up a line of questioning present in society and deepens it. 3) The philosopher as a researcher of the “heritage”, finding bits and pieces that were neglected and that can be reclaimed as “ours” and relevant for the present—and republishing and commenting on them.

“Heritage”: Continuity and Breaks After these two synchronic analyses—focusing on two key years of the Journal of Philosophy and..., the year of its first independent publication in a newly independent country (1992), as Journal of Philosophy and Law, and the year of the change of its title in Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science (2007), the possibility for a few more general reflections arises. First, the program proposed in (Babii 1992)—the idea of “reclaiming heritage” as the main impetus for a new way of doing history of philosophy in a post-communist context—was enormously fruitful, and it was adopted by a number of authors who continue to publish in the journal for decades, and by their PhD students as well. Its first applications arose in 1992 through reclaiming “forgotten figures” of “Moldovan philosophy”, such like A. S. Sturdza or P. Mogila, in a double attempt: to present their work to a contemporary audience and to position them as “our own precursors”. In 2007, the main field for “reclaiming” was already that of 20th Century Romanian philosophy. Due to the fact that the official cultural policy in Soviet Moldova was to deny its participation in the Romanian culture and its belonging to the Romanian linguistic and cultural space, figures like M. Eliade, T. Vianu, L. Blaga (to mention only those to whom studies were dedicated in the Journal) were considered taboo. Even if, in Romania, a multitude of studies touching on them appeared, and they continued to be read even during the years the Romanian communist regime was forbidding them, they were virtually

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 205 unknown to the Moldovan public. In this sense, the movement of reclaiming them had two basic functions: to emphasize the belonging of Moldovan culture to the larger Romanian cultural areal and to offer relatively easy and accessible topics for doing history of philosophy: their works were relatively available, there was an abundance of secondary literature, and the task for a historian of philosophy deciding to “reclaim” them for the Moldovan space was relatively straightforward. Second, the main discursive position in 1992—the period in which there was an attempt to find out how a philosophy paper can be written in a post-Soviet context—was that of the philosopher as an expert responding to the requirements of the present moment. There is a deep confidence in the possibility to know “how things should look like” and “what would lead to the desired outcome”. The topics that are touched upon in the papers vary: the rise of unemployment, relationship ethics, social justice, the way to do history of philosophy, and, of course, the emerging topic of “heritage”. 2007, on the other hand, is marked by “the great values controversy”. Values (and “norms”) become a central topic for almost all the philosophers publishing in the Philosophy rubric of the journal. The position adopted by most of them is that of a “defender of traditional values” in the face of globalization and “postmodernism”. The only voice that makes an exception is claiming that no hierarchy of values is possible (in the condition of “postmodernism”), but encourages a certain education of sensitivity to values among the youth, without imposing the content of values. So, the voice of the philosopher becomes that of an active society member, preoccupied with what they see as a threat: either “non-values” or “lack of sensitivity to values” risks affecting/”destructing” the “already established values”, and the philosophers see as their task to point out this phenomenon and, usually, propose explanations—from an “expert position”—as to the sources of the problem and possible strategies. Third, the journal has established a clear-cut difference between “authors with a PhD” and “PhD students”, publishing their papers in different rubrics: Philosophy and Research Reports (Comunicări științifice, problematically translated, in the English

206 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU version of the contents, as Research Papers). The 2007 papers of PhD students are, indeed, different from those belonging to PhDs: they explore a more essayistic tone and are proposing positive readings of 20th Century continental philosophers, while the papers belonging to PhDs are usually exploring more general topics (“values”, “social norms”), without focusing on a particular author (the only exception in the Philosophy section is a paper on argumentation in Plato, and the one in the Heritage rubric—on “Romanian axiological identity” in M. Eliade; in the latter case, there is still a continuity of topic—”values”, operating in the logic of heritage, but the paper is focused on the work of a single author). The innovative character of PhD students’ work is due to an attempt to engage as readers with continental philosophy, letting the discourse of philosophers they read affect their own voice, the result being a clear difference from their PhD holding colleagues. A similar strategy of borrowing one’s voice to another or speaking with is adopted by those who write about Romanian philosophers, in a “heritage” logic (the main difference here is one of stylistic experimentation, specific to the PhD students and absent from most established researchers). These trends have continued and deepened over the years. The contemporary landscape of papers published in the Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science has a number of similar aspects: the Heritage rubric continues to be present in the journal, publishing mainly papers on 19th and 20th Century Romanian philosophers; there is a tendency to write about general issues (considered as relevant for the society), but papers dedicated to single authors have slowly made their way in the Philosophy rubric as well; and, after more people influenced by 20th Century continental philosophy have defended their dissertations, a greater stylistic difference is present in the Philosophy rubric as well, shifting from the discursive position of the “philosopher as an expert speaking about an issue relevant for the society” to the more modest position of “philosopher as reflective reader”.

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 207

Bibliography Anikin, V. I. (1992). Metamorfozy socialʹnoj spravedlivosti (gumanističeskij aspekt) [from Rus.: The metamorphosis of the social justice (the humanitarian aspect)]. Revista de filosofie și drept 3(101): 16–24. Babii, A. (1992). Cercetări istorico-filosofice în Moldova. Realizări și perspective [from Rom.: Historic-philosophical research in Moldova. Accomplishments and perspectives]. Revista de filosofie și drept 1(99): 13–21. Babii, A., Vrabie, E. (1992). Un studiu demn de atenție [from Rom.: A study worthy of attention]. Revista de filosofie și drept 3(101): 31–35. Bobână, G. (1992). „Pro fide et patria” în concepția lui Petru Movilă [from Rom.: “Pro fide et patria” in Petru Movilă ‘s view]. Revista de filosofie și drept 2(100): 17–23. Bobână, G. (2007). Mircea Eliade și identitatea axiologică românească [from Rom.: Mircea Eliade and the Romanian axiological identity]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 131–135. Boboc, A. (1992). Filosofia și sistemul valorilor în cultura „Luminilor” [from Rom.: Philosophy and values system in the “Enlightenment” culture]. Revista de filosofie și drept 2(100): 11–16. Bodean, N. (2007). Rolul factorului economic în formarea și manifestarea națiunii și naționalismului [from Rom.: pleas translate in Eng]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 3(145): 92–103. Capcelea, V. (2007a). Dimensiunea filosofică a categoriei „tradiție” și funcțiile ei sociale [from Rom.: The philosophical dimension of the “tradition” category and its social functions]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 63–72. Capcelea, V. (2007b). Funcțiile normelor sociale [from Rom.: The functions of social norms]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 2(144): 29–38. Cheianu, C. (2007). Criterii de clasificare și ierarhizare a valorilor la Tudor Vianu și Lucian Blaga: studiu comparativ [from Rom.: Criteria for classification and hierachization of values in Tudor Vianu and Lucian Blaga: a comparative study]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 2(144): 139–145. Guțu, V. Elocința și argumentarea în viziunea lui Platon [from Rom.: Eloquence and argumentation in Plato]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 3(145): 13–19. Pahopol, S. C. (1992). Kulʹtura bračno-semejnyh otnošenij [from Rus.: The culture on the marriage-family relations]. Revista de filosofie și drept 1(99): 21–37.

208 ALEXANDRU COSMESCU Pascaru, A. (2007). Raport și motivare în condiționarea valorilor societale [from Rom.: Relation and Motivation in Social Values Conditioning]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 2(144): 14–21. Perciun, A. (2007). Considerații filosofice pentru o noema a imaginii fotografice [from Rom.: Philosophical Considerations Regarding a Noema of Photographic Image]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 3(145): 104–110. Rău, A. (2007). Scrierea ca daseinogramă [from Rom.: Writing as Daseinogram]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 87–95. Rumleanschi, P., Țapoc, V. (1992). Principiile de bază ale cunoștințelor umane și rolul lor în creația științifică [from Rom.: Fundamental Principles of Human Knowledge and Their Role in Scientific Creation]. Revista de filosofie și drept 2(100): 3–11. Roșca, A. (1992). Omul ca subiect al acțiunii sociale [from Rom.: Man as a Subject of Social Action]. Revista de filosofie și drept 3(101): 3–9. Sârbu, I. F. (1992). Nekotorye filosofskie problemy obŝej èkologii [from Rus.: Some philosophical issues of the general ecology]. Revista de filosofie și drept 2(100): 3–11. Șaptefrați, S. (2007). Statutul valorii în postmodernism [from Rom.: The Status of Value in Postmodernism]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 57–62. Trofăilă, L. (1992). Divergențele în familie: aspectul social-psihologic [from Rom.: Divergences in the Family: Social-Psychological Aspect]. Revista de filosofie și drept 3(101): 9–16. Troianowski, L. (2007a). Valori estetice: globalizare versus universalitate [from Rom.: Aesthetic values: Globalization Versus Universality (I)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 49–56. Troianowski, L. (2007b). Escaladarea dimensiunilor eliadeene: reflexe și reflecții [from Rom.: The climbing of Eliadean dimensions: reflexes and reflections]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 1(143): 136–139. Troianowski, L. (2007c). Valori estetice: globalizare versus universalitate (II) [from Rom.: Aesthetic values: Globalization Versus Universality (II)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 2(144): 22–28. Ursul, A. (2007a). Pravo tretʹego tysâčiletiâ: metodologičeskie aspekty [from Rus.: The law of the third millennium]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 2(144): 5–13. Ursul, A. (2007b). Pravo tretʹego tysâčiletiâ: metodologičeskie aspekty (II) [from Rus.: The law of the third millennium (II)]. Revista de filosofie, sociologie și științe politice 3(145): 5–12.

CONSTRUCTING A PHILOSOPHICAL VOICE 209 Varzari, P. (1992). Producția și omul: potențialul creator al personalității în sfera muncii [from Rom.: Production and Man: The Creative Potential of the Personality in the Sphere of Work]. Revista de filosofie și drept 1(99): 3–13.

7

Russia

Contemporary Philosophy in Russia (1991–2022) Michail Maiatsky There are1 several risks in describing this period since it was very eventful and therefore it was “qualitatively long”, and its middle stage has nothing in common with either the beginning or the end. Compared with the Soviet period, the philosophical landscape of the period has become incredibly complicated and multiplied. This concerns the content of ideas as much as institutional changes, which I briefly summarize in this chapter. The last thirty years have been marked not only by an internal development, but also by an evolution of philosophy worldwide (cf. the postmodern enthusiasm of the 1990s vs. the later “fatigue” of it, which found its expression partly in the “new” or “speculative” realism), especially as Russia was gradually globalizing, also in philosophical terms. What seemed promising at the beginning, later proved to be a dead end, but even this should not be neglected. There is a risk of exaggerating the importance of recent developments or misjudging them, since no measure is yet available. At the same time, it is tempting to guess which names will become trendsetters or even philosophical “classics” of tomorrow. In doing so, one would like to avoid turning the chapter into an endless name-dropping, although one would not want to overlook any important names2 either. Several of the philosophers and theorists appearing here are multifaceted figures, but due to the lack of space in this chapter they can only be mentioned under 1

2

An earlier version of this text was written in German for a big handbook on Russian philosophy edited by Holger Kuße that will be published at Frank und Timme Publishers in Berlin probably in 2023. When listing, I used the alphabetical principle so as not to succumb to the ranking temptation.

211

212 MICHAIL MAIATSKY one aspect, and only once. Although some of them are difficult to assign to one philosophical direction, I have tried to put them into one category for the sake of clarity. In addition, there are the limits of personal competence, the inevitable biases and subjectivism of the observer, i. e. my own limits.3 Therefore, this can only be a very general and inevitably incomplete presentation, whereby for the recent development of special philosophical disciplines such as aesthetics, religious philosophy or logic, please refer to the corresponding chapters of other handbooks4. The structure of the chapter is simple: I start with institutional aspects, then I depict main trends of the period, as well as its chronology, and I draw some conclusions.

1

The End of Socialism and Its Consequences

1.1 The post-Soviet The entire period lies under the influence—diminishing with time—of the collapse or, as some say, of the shock of the USSR dissolution and the end of the Soviet communist ideological monopoly. Therefore, during the whole period it has being called post-Soviet by both actors in the country and observers abroad. This term clearly indicated that there had been no more important event since then. The brutal fracture that took place on February 24, 2022, served as the natural end of this period. What began after that may even bear certain traits of re-Sovietization5, but will be a

3

4 5

I personally obtained the Philosophy diploma in the USSR, but then spent almost the entirety of the period abroad, whilst trying to remain active also within the Russian philosophical community. For this and other reasons I am not a “privileged witness” of the period. On this occasion, I would like to thank more than thirty colleagues who generously helped me with valuable informations to write this chapter. Besides Kuße’s handbook mentioned above, see Bykova, Forster & Steiner (ed.) 2021. The term is certainly not to be understood in the sense of the return of the power of councils (Soviets). Moreover, the revival of communist, even Stalinist ideals and attributes in no way precludes a renaissance of monarchist and Orthodox Christian faith values: ideologically, Putin’s state was agile enough to remain

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 213 transitional phase to something very different. “Everything changed on February 24th,” this oft-repeated adage, for all its hyperbole, conveys a distinct sense of a complete change of scene that has undoubtedly affected and will still affect the philosophical field. But this story has yet to be written. 1.2 Philosophical guild The debacle of communist ideology raised many hopes and expectations, but also caused deep shocks. The whole Russian6 “philosophical guild” was affected. It was a fundamental professional crisis of the more than 15 000 scholars who, mostly as scholars with or without professorships, were professionally engaged in philosophy. The disintegration of the ties with the authorities, the end of the censorship, the impoverishment or even dissolution of several state institutions, the privatization of the media, the proliferation of publishing houses and journals, and the general diversity of forms and channels of communication (including philosophical)—all this profoundly changed the framework of philosophizing after 1991. At the end of this period, censorship—though not de jure, but de facto and with some new specificity of the returned authoritarian regime—was back. This return has coincided with the limitation of the contacts to colleagues “abroad”, with attempts to control the Russian Internet resources, with an apology of labor education, even the reconstruction of GULAG-like structures, and the trends alike. 1.3 Generational aspect In many respects, the period under review was a continuation of the last, aborted and thus failed ideological turn prompted by the Thaw (1956–64). The generation that emerged at that time was able to realize itself only to a limited extent. According to the model of

6

eclectic, vague, ambivalent, and, in its own way, domestically efficient - of course, up to its monstrous hubris of February 2022. This word, as usual in “Russian” area studies, refers in this text indistinguishably either to Russian (rossijskij) statehood or to the Russian (russkij) language.

214 MICHAIL MAIATSKY gerontocratic party and state leadership, the old cadres, some of whom had been educated in the Stalin era, were still at the helm in the mid- to late 1980s, also in philosophy. At the time of Perestroika (1986–91) and the collapse of the USSR (1991), at least two more generations of philosophers perceived themselves as “late” and disadvantaged, not without reason.7 In this respect, a great change can be noted: today young philosophers—through the social networks, through the increased number of journals and other media—have much easier access to the public. Yet it is probably fair to say that the pendulum is swinging decidedly in the opposite direction: young people are now encouraged to publish early, either individually or through participation in research groups, while still at university. The variety of genres has also expanded greatly: it’s no longer just academic texts, but expressions of various shapes and lengths, from a book-thick tract to a Facebook or web portal posting to a video or an audio course. 1.4 Teaching The first result of the Soviet Union’s collapse could be felt in teaching. The higher education system quickly split into state and numerous private universities, some of which were privatized and some of which were newly founded. Very quickly the private(ized) universities discarded the former system of “social” disciplines, including the party history, dialectical and historical materialism, political economy, scientific communism. Gradually, the state universities did the same, all in the chaos of the abrupt dismantling of the Soviet state education and propaganda system. Within the framework of job creation, thousands of professors have introduced changes in their teaching profile: the party history became “socio-political history,” “dialectical and historical materialism” became “philosophy” or “culturology,”8 or even the “religious education” in some places. Hundreds of philosophy teachers were asked to write new philosophy or culturology 7 8

On a general generational analysis of post-Soviet Russia, see: Levada & Šanin 2005. On this discipline in the 1980-90s, see the insightful study: Scherrer 2003.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 215 textbooks. The majority of these teaching materials, as was to be expected, failed the test of time, so marked were they by old templates of thought and the often unsuccessful search for a new language of thought. The vague and eclectic “civilization paradigm” (civilizacionnyj podkhod)9 has taken the place of the discarded Marxist-Leninist ideologized—but elaborate and detailed—doctrine. The ill-prepared and chaotic imitation of the Bologna reform has participated in the growing confusion. Within few years, the philosophical landscape has become much more complicated. The institutes of the academy and (even more so) of the party were in an acute crisis of ideas and finances, were partially reprofiled, and several of them disappeared. The number of philosophical faculties all over the country (from less than ten before the beginning of Perestroika) grew enormously (though less than law or economics faculties). In the two Russian capitals alone, apart from the Moscow State University (MSU) and the SaintPetersburg State University (SPbSU), new philosophical faculties or departments were established in the “Vyška” (Higher School of Economics, HSE), the Russian State Humanities University (RSHU), the “Šaninka” (Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences, MSSES), and the Russian Christian Academy (RChA). Here I should mention the phenomenon of influential philosophy professors, whose value is to be measured not so by their publications, as by their pedagogical charisma. Figures such as Arsenij Čanyšev (1926–2005), Viačeslav Danilov, Viačeslav Dmitriev, Diana Gasparian, Fëdor Girenok, Vasilij Kuznecov, Pëtr Safronov in Moscow, or Nikolaj Ivanov, Jevgenij Lin’kov (1938– 2021), Valerij Savčuk, Aleksandr Sekackij, Konstantin Pigrov in Saint-Petersbourg, or Oleg Donskikh and Sergey Smirnov in Novosibirsk, or Aleksandr Percev in Ekaterinburg, or Aleksandr Upravitelev (1961–2007) in Barnaul, or Boris Mokin (1934–2018) in Saratov, or Mikhail Šul’man (1947–2019), Roman Gromov (1970– 2014), Yurij Tiščenko (1934-2022) in Rostov-on-Don and many

9

See again: Scherrer 2002.

216 MICHAIL MAIATSKY others contributed decisively to the preservation of the living philosophical word.10 1.5 Qualification The state qualification system, which was responsible for determining academic degrees, has undergone several rather inconsistent reforms, which also affected the network of academic councils before which new candidates and doctors defended their dissertations. The whole system still suffers from a crisis of confidence today, at the beginning of the 3rd decade of the 21st century, as corruption has also severely damaged this area. Here I should commend the Dissernet anti-plagiarism project,11 which undertook the difficult work of rehabilitating this system and succeeded, among other things, in having several doctorates awarded to falsifiers and plagiarists revoked. 1.6 Alternative institutions After several years of confusion, academically institutionalized philosophy has picked itself up and taken its fate back into its own hands.12 At the opposite pole of this official philosophy, one can find a wide range of experiments in para- or unofficial institutionalization, some of which continue late Soviet practice.13 From 1990 to 2014, Alexei Černiakov and some other philosophers worked at the Religious-Philosophical College (Vysšaya religiozno-

10

11 12

13

Donskich 1997; Gasparian 2011; Girenok 1998, 2008; Kuznecov Vas. 2010, 2016; Lin’kov 2012; Pigrov 2007; Safronov 2012; Savčuk 2012; Sekackij 2000, 2005, 2012, 2016; Smirnov S. 2016; Šul’man 2009. The site is accessible at: https://www.dissernet.org/ See, for example, Pružinin 2010: this book was published as a volume in the series “The Philosophy of Russia of the 2nd Half of the 20th Century” and inscribes the biographies of the full members of the Academy of Sciences and the last heads of the Institute (or its departments) of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences (Abdusalam Gusejnov, Vladislav Lektorskij, Teodor Ojzerman, Viačeslav Stëpin) in the “monumental history” of Russian philosophy. The late Soviet history of informal philosophical-artistic associations, which is also momentous for our period, remains to be written: cf. Moscow Conceptualism (around Andrei Monastyrsky) with its explicitly metaphysical dimension or the mystical-esoteric Yuzinsky Circle (with Yuri Mamleev, Aleksandr Dugin, Yevgeny Golovin, and the like).

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 217 filosofskaya škola) that was founded by the Association of Scientists in Saint-Petersburg (Černiakov 2001, 2016). An important group “Anonsens” was founded by young lecturers and students of MSU (among them—by Irina and Viačeslav Dmitriev, Aleksandr Alekseev). From the community Censura.ru sprang the Moscow Philosophical College (Moskovskij filosofskij Kolledž) founded in 2009 by Dmitry Kralečkin, Irina Dudenkova, Pëtr Safronov; from 2019 this institute continued as the Moscow Philosophical Circle, which was organized by the same founders as well as by Viačeslav Danilov and Konstantin Gaaze. Since 2015, the Open Philosophical Faculty (Otkrytyj Filosofskij Fakultet) has been active, led by Ilya and Viktoriya Mavrinskiy. Nina Braginskaja and several other philosophers from the Independent Moscow University (Nezavisimyj Moskovskij Universitet) launched the culturalhistorical “Laboratory of Useless Things” in 2017. One of the latest attacks on academic freedoms in Russia was followed by the creation of the Free University (Svobodnyj Universitet) in 2020. In various ways, newly created or renewed Moscow institutions such as the Strelka Institute, the Polytechnic Museum, the Syg.ma portal, or the Jewish Museum and Center for Tolerance are linked to philosophy. Following the European fashion, some “philosophical cafés” have also appeared in Russia. The Aleksandr Piatigorsky Prize for Literature is practically the only independent philosophical prize in Russia. It was launched in 2013 and has run for eight seasons so far. Its goal is “to promote interest in philosophizing outside the professional philosophical community.”14 1.7 Philosophical journals In the Soviet period, the philosophical press was easily manageable: apart from a few faculty or regional editions, only two nationwide philosophical journals existed: The Issues of Philosophy Journal (Voprosy filosofii, from 1947) of the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy and The Philosophical Sciences Journal (Filosofskie nauki,

14

See more on this at: https://piatigorskyf.com/prize.

218 MICHAIL MAIATSKY from 1958) of the Ministry of Higher Education (both journals exist until today). Only few publishing houses (Politizdat, Nauka, Vysšaja škola) were allowed to publish philosophical literature in Soviet Russia. However, in 1991 the situation has changed radically. That year, professors and students of philosophy founded three alternative philosophical journals:   

The Logos Journal edited by Valerij Anašvili The Path (Put’) Journal edited by Alexander Yakovlev and Yurij Senokosov (in 1991–1995) (both in Moscow); The Steps (Stupeni) Journal edited by Pavel Kuznecov in St. Petersburg.”

Next year, they were followed by the philosophical-literary Commentaries (Kommentarii) Journal edited by Aleksandr Davydov. In 1993 by The Magic Mountain (Volšebnaja gora) Journal was established by its editor Artur Medvedev. The list was joined by the Second Navigation (Vtoraja navigacija) Journal, which edited by Michael Blumenkranz... While Stupeni did not survive the turn of the millennium, Logos exists until today and is one of the most important philosophical journals in Russia. Besides, other journals are also very present in the philosophical scene in 2021: 

    

the literary studies and humanities journal of New Literary Review (Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie) edited by Irina Prochorova; the art-critical and aesthetics Art Journal (Khudožestvennyj žurnal) edited by Viktor Misiano; the theo-psychological EINAI Journal edited by Daniel Orlov; the analytical Date Compote (Finikovyj kompot) Journal edited by Evgenij Loginov; the sociocultural Emergency Ration (Neprikosnovennyj zapas) Journal edited until 2020 Ilya Kalinin; the political-aesthetic Blue Divan (Sinij divan) Journal edited by Elena Petrovskaya;

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 219   

the theoretical-political Stasis Journal edited by Artemij Magun; the philosophical-anthropological Topos Journal edited by Tatjana Shchittsova and published in Belarus/Lithuania; the practical-poetic Translit Journal edited by Pavel Arsenjev.

Also, the Puškin or Russkij žurnal project (1997–2015, founded by Gleb Pavlovskij, Marat Gel’man, and Sergej Černyšev) had a permanent and significant philosophical component among their publications. One should also mention the Russian most important academic journals in philosophy: 



The Philosophical Journal (Filosofskij žurnal) and The Human (Čelovek) Journal published by the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences; The Philosophy (Filosofija) Journal published by the HSE.

On the same list, there are those journals that are dedicated to narrower philosophical disciplines: The History of Philosophy (Istorija filosofii) Journal, The Epistemology and philosophy of science (Epistemologija i filosofija nauki) Journal and some others. Dozens of other journals were founded and exist to date, several dozen more have survived only a few years. Much more often than in the Soviet period, Russian philosophers have their works published abroad. I just wanted to name two journals in particular that specialize in this area: The Russian (once: Soviet) Studies in Philosophy (Taylor & Francis; edited by Marina Bykova) and The Studies in East-European (once: Soviet) Thought (Kluwer/Springer; edited for years by Edward Swiderski; currently also by Marina Bykova15)—both journals strongly favor institutionalized (especially academic) philosophy.

15

For all the conceivable merits of the person, such a curious accumulation of offices detracts from the diversity of approaches and currents presented.

220 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Two global phenomena have also affected Russian philosophy recently. First, it is the science-metric “stimulation of research,”16 i.e., the establishment of a direct correlation between income and quantity of publications (and quality, which in turn one tries to quantify) led to a growing number of journals (inevitably, in part, junk science reviews) (Rubcov 2016). Second is the digitization of publications, which was followed by the conspicuous autonomization of the individual article that increasingly functions as an entity independent of the journal and its reputation. 1.8 Media In addition to the traditional forms of publication on paper, new forms came into circulation that were in greater demand and sought after, especially by new players on the media scene, or by younger people interested in and fond of philosophy. During these thirty years, the “digital turn” also took place in Russia and had its impact on philosophy following Marshall McLuhan’s coined aphorism: the medium is the message. In the 1990s, when the Soviet book trade networks were broken and post-Soviet populations turned to “copyright piracy”, digital libraries have become especially popular source of philosophical reading. Among these were the Elena Kosilova’s library, the e-librarbies of Jakov Krotov and Slava Yanko, Gumer.info, the e-collections of Filosof.historic.ru, Elibrary.ru, Philosophy.ru, etc. From the turn of the millennium, LiveJournal (ŽŽ aka Živoj žurnal) came to the fore. The discussions among bloggers of that time (e.g. Viačeslav Danilov, Alexei Glukhov, Dmitry Kralečkin, Eduard Nadtočij, and Viktor Vakhštain) played a very important role in the formation of the agenda of philosophical thought and its vocabulary in the following decades. Similar debates continued in other social networks on the “pages” and in the “communities” of Facebook, VKontakte, Telegram,17 YouTube18 and the platforms 16

17 18

By the way, the term naukometrija (science-metrics) was introduced by the Russian-Soviet mathematician and philosopher Vasilij Nalimov (1910–1997): Nalimov & Mul’čenko 1969. For example, see: @akhtyrskyphilosophyclub, PhilosophyToday, Filosofskoe kafe etc. For example, see: Teoestetika, Philoso FAQ, http://andriibaumeister.com/, etc.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 221 alike with the same or other bloggers (e.g. Dmitry Akhtyrsky, Konstantin Bandurovskij, and Andrej Baumeister). 1.9 Globalization During the reviewed period, Russian philosophy was further globalizing, despite all the raves about its “isolation” and “uniqueness.” The fall of the Iron Curtain has led to the openness of Russia to many important foreign philosophers and intellectuals. Thinkers like Giorgio Agamben, Frank Ankersmit, Karl-Otto Apel, Jean Baudrillard, Raymond Brassier, Hauke Brunkhorst, Susan Buck-Morss, David Chalmers, Randall Collins, Daniel Dennett, Philippe Descola, Vincent Descombes, Jacques Derrida, Steve Fuller, Markus Gabriel, Ernest Gellner, Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht, Jürgen Habermas, Graham Harman, Marcel Hénaff, Jaakko Hintikka, Ottfried Höffe,19 Vittorio Hösle, Frederic Jameson, Ivan Krastev, Julia Kristeva, Thomas Kuhn, Philippe Lacoue-Labarthe, Jean-Luc Nancy, Timothy Morton, Ilya Prigojine, Paul Ricœur, Elisabeth Roudinesco, John Searle, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Laurent Thévenot, Tzvetan Todorov, Paolo Virno, Slavoj Žižek, and Alenka Zupančič visited Russia, were read and discussed. Some of them have also described and analyzed this new Russian experience.20 The French thought’s presence in Russian philosophy and in other social and humanities disciplines was promoted by the Collèges universitaires français in Moscow and Saint-Petersburg. Some universities, though not many, have been attractive for Western professors as permanent jobs before 2022. There are many philosophers and intellectuals who, writing in Russian, have been active abroad for years, but remain influential on the intellectual life in Russia; among them: Georgy Derlugyan, Mikhail Epstein, Aleksandr Etkind, Boris Groys, Boris Paramonov, Alekandr Piatigorsky (1929–2009), Nikolay Plotnikov, Yoel Regev, Mikhail Ryklin, Irina Sandomirskaya, Karen Svasyan, Igor

19 20

See an important handbook of contemporary “Western” philosophy with his participation: Filatov, Höffe & Malakhov 2009. On that see: Buck-Morss 2000; Derrida 1995; Groys & Hösle 2011; Hösle 2017.

222 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Smirnov, Sergey Ušakin (Oushakine), Mikhail Yampolsky.21 Some others earned their philosophical master’s and/or doctoral degrees at Western universities, but later returned to Russia. Another dimension of globalization is the presence—albeit declining—of Russian as a language of philosophizing and the publication of philosophical works in the independent states of the former URSS. For example, publishing houses such as Duch i Litera, Gumanitarnyj centr, Laurus, Nika-Centr, Sophia, Vakler in Ukraine, of the Logvinov publishing house in Belarus and Lithuania publish philosophical literature in Russian. The intellectuals like Vardan Ajrapetian (1948–2019) in Armenia or Evgenij Abdullaev in Uzbekistan philosophize in Russian. Russian has been or still remains, albeit decreasingly, an important language22, besides the ‘vernacular’ one, of philosophical work in Belarus (used by, among others, Vladimir Furs (1963–2009), Pavel Barkovskij, Vladimir Mackevič, Tat’jana Mišatkina, Tatjana Shchittsova, Olga Šparaga, Tamara Tuzova) and in Ukraine (used by Andrej Baumeister, Aleksej Bosenko, Nazip Khamitov, Vachtang Kebuladze, Evgenij Lebed’, Vadim Menžulin, Mikhail Minakov, and Marina Saveljeva). The situation with the languages of philosophizing varies in each of these countries, and it deserves a separate analysis. 1.10 Self-reflection The post-Soviet period in Russian philosophy is characterized by a remarkedly high level of interest not only in the (as one impishly put it, unpredictable) past of the country and its philosophy, but also in their present time. Numerous attempts have been and are being made to describe and analyze the changes taking place almost in real time.23

21 22 23

See the Bibliography of this chapter for some of their important contributions. See the Bibliography of this chapter for some of their important contributions. Batygin, Kozlova & Swiderski 2005; Kebuladze 2015; Krasikov 2008; Kurennoj 2006–2009; Nilogov 2007, 2011; Pugačëva & Vachštajn 2009; Sergeev M. 2018; Sineokaja 2021; Sineokaja 2022; Soboleva 2009; compare with: Ackermann et al. 1995; Gethmann & Plotnikov 1998; Swiderski 1998; Umland, Bürgel & Keith 2005–2009.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 223

2

Reorientations and Major Questions

The fall of the USSR may seem logical and inevitable in retrospect, but it came unexpectedly even to the people who longed for it. Neither Sovietologists abroad, nor philosophers within the Soviet Union had seen it coming. Philosophy was strongly and elaborately established in the Soviet Union, but what will or should happen to it now that the latter had been dissolved? Or rather, what should we do with it now? Regarding the socialist past, the first reaction was to depoliticize philosophy. For seventy years, our philosophy had become ancilla ideologiae, that is, a political by-product. It should now have been freed from this yoke in order to think again about Being and about the eternal problems of philosophy. Somewhat later, the pendulum swung back: shouldn’t philosophy be part of the agora since its Greek beginnings? It must have developed and promoted the reflection of the polis and society on themselves. Human as zôon politikon must therefore be at its center. So, should philosophy be re-politicized? The resulting ideological vacuum—or just a feeling of it— caused an urgent need for philosophical reorientation. The old “truth” was dethroned, and the sudden freedom became a haunting specter for some. Out of habit, people sought for new truth that would have replaced the old one. Several competing scenarios—and groups supporting them—have quickly emerged, some of which were ready to be combined or were not necessarily mutually exclusive. None of them has prevailed over the past thirty years, each experienced its ups and downs, and to some degree they all remain valid today. These scenarios turned to tendencies, and can be outlined as six distinguished trends in post-Soviet Russia: 1) The return to the pre-revolutionary philosophy (or to that of the Russian emigration); 2) The continuation of the “unofficial” Soviet philosophy in the post-Soviet conditions; 3) The return to “real Marx,” continuation of pre- and postStalin Marxism;

224 MICHAIL MAIATSKY 4) The movement toward “normal” philosophy as practiced outside of Russia; 5) “Thinking the Russian way” (historiosophically and/or geopolitically); 6) The history of philosophy as genuine philosophy. I will now introduce them in a little more detail. 2.1 The return to the pre-revolutionary philosophy (or to that of emigration) According to the main idea of this scenario, the whole Soviet period is a sheer mistake, so one should simply return to the status quo ante. The hunger for “Russian thought” was immense in the first years of Perestroika and post-Soviet period, and it remains rather big until now. Several philosophers (e.g. Alexander Dobrokhotov, Vadim Mežuev, Vladimir Porus) who had previously had little or no involvement with Russian philosophy began to pursue this issue. It would be unfair to see this only as an opportunistic phenomenon. It was often a matter of reconsideration, a kind of conversion or even metanoia, which was to give meaning to new social and personal crisis experiences and demonstrate possible solutions. Furthermore, it was a search for the language of philosophizing, which was long buried under the Marxist or Marxoid didactic phraseology, for an old forgotten (and possibly to-be-renewed) Russian philosophical idiom. The “actuality of Russian philosophy” became the subject of countless conferences and colloquia, as well as thematic issues of several journals. Soon the questions arose: Are the pre-revolutionary philosophical concepts sufficient to apply for the contemporary problem fields? Can the results of the Soviet philosophy be simply dismissed as null and void? In this context, the specific for the period was the discussion around the question whether Russian philosophy still exists at all and can be continued? Vladimir Malakhov, for example, argued that “Russian philosophy” was a historically limited phenomenon that had developed first in pre-revolutionary Russia and then in exile, and it symbolically came to an end in 1965 with the deaths of

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 225 Nikolaj Losskij and Fëdor Stepun. Viktor Molčanov, on the other hand, was of the opinion that Russian philosophy had never really been interrupted and would continue as long as we read previous authors and continued to think with them in Russian (see Eichler & Schneider 1996). What interests us most here were the attempts to continue the Russian thought as if the Soviet period or ideology had never existed. Here we should mention, first of all, the philosophical enterprise of Vladimir Bibikhin (1938–2004). Trained as a philologist, he was first known for his translations24 of, among others, Martin Heidegger’s writings, which have strongly influenced his own philosophical views. This is equally true for his way of thinking and writing—long, often etymologically based deevolutions of terms that gradually captivated the listeners and/or readers. Same is true to the topics of his philosophy: primacy of Being (Seyn, bytie) over entity (Seiende, suščieie), the role of technology, destruction of metaphysics on its way to thought, etc. In his last years, Ludwig Wittgenstein became almost as important to him as Heidegger. His translation of “Being and Time,” undoubtedly an event in the history of the Russian language, remains controversial. Heidegger was regarded by him as a kind of antidote to communist ideology, the reason why he kept silence regarding Heidegger’s Nazi involvement. Bibikhin’s high reputation has also influenced the respectful attitudes of younger Russian Heideggerians. His philosophical position was colored by and expressed in Christian terms that translated further into the mystical ethics of silence, asceticism, resistance to the pressures of the social (which he often equated with “evil”), the service to the Thought and to the Word. Unlike with Heidegger, with him Being stands close to the moral “Good.” He also understands the unconcealedness–alêtheia in terms of the presence of the sought-for in the everydayness, in the action. One can immediately spot here a distinct Vassily Rozanov-like undertone in Bibikhin’s reading of Heidegger. Also a very active translator (of works by Nicholas of 24

In the Soviet period, it was more a matter of summaries or long retellings in the so-called “referential anthologies” of the Institute of Scientific Information.

226 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Cusa, Palamas, Petrarch, Arendt, and Derrida), it is still through his lectures, diaries (he liked to stylize both into some sort of sermons) and books that his impact was the most important.25 Sergei Khoružij (1941–2020), a Doctor of Physics who was close to Bibikhin for many years and who is also known for his translation of, among others, “Ulysses” by James Joyce,26 has something decidedly amateurish about his philosophy in comparison to Vladimir Bibikhin. His ambition was to provide Orthodox Christianity with a contemporary and deeply traditional theology. Khoružij was vehemently committed to Hesychasm and strongly promoted the interest in the Hesychastic tradition—and the Palamism in particular27—in contemporary Russia. He believed that the energies (through which, for the Church Fathers, God expresses himself, as opposed to the divine essence which is to remain incomprehensible to us humans) can be made detached from that of essence, and that it could be used to ground the antiessentialist anthropology. In his curious project of a new AllScience, or else the “synergetic anthropology,” he tries, in view of the challenges of the present and the future life, to build the bridge from Hesychasm to the latest scientific technical knowledge. He attempts to do so under the motto of synergy, i.e. of the joint action of divine creation and human achievement (amusingly, “synergy” represented for some a due substitute for the “diamat”, i.e. dialectical materialism). Also for Khoružij, the Whole was inseparable from the triumphant Prometheism and the declarative programmatic slogans that contrasted intriguingly from Bibikhin’s quiet voice and hesitant thought processes.28

25

26 27

28

These were the books published during his lifetime (1993, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2003), as well as posthumously (2005a, b, 2008, 2009a, b, 2011, 2012, 2015). See also: Bibikhin & Sedakova 2019. Together with Viktor Chinkis. These teachings stand in complex and difficult relations with the official doctrine of the Orthodox Church, which remains rather faithful to Barlaam of Calabria, Palamas’ opponent. Julij Shrejder (1927–1998), mathematician, cyberneticist, Catholic, and ethicist, also stands in a position similar to Khoružij’s.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 227 2.2 Continuity between the “unofficial” Soviet and post-Soviet philosophies The motto of this scenario was: there is basically nothing to change in the orientation of philosophy with the fall of the USSR—one only has to continue the unofficial29 philosophy of the Soviet period, including those intellectual quasi-philosophical practices that, for ideological reasons, did not necessarily claim the title of “philosophy” and pretended to be some kind of “science” or “art”. The unofficial Soviet philosophy enjoys today a constantly increasing attention, even documentary films were made on it.30 Merab Mamardašvili (1930–1990) and Evald Ilyenkov (1924–1979) are the two most outstanding representatives of the unofficial Soviet philosophy (Mežuev 2013). The students or followers of the two were very active before and after 1991. However, Valerij Podoroga (1946–2020) said that he himself was not a student of Merab, because Mamardašvili, unlike Georgij Ščedrovickij, had no students. Still, one cannot deny the fact that Podoroga was deeply impressed and strongly influenced by Mamardašvili’s thought. More striking are the differences between the two. While Mamardašvili tried to rehabilitate the over-ideologized word “philosophy,” Valerij Podoroga often left it aside, without excluding it though, and defined his own intellectual endeavor as anthropology or, more precisely, as mimetology, with very specific interpretation of both terms. Podoroga confronted anthropology to 29

30

In this (of course, over-simplified, but hopefully usefull) opposition, by official philosophy I mean that orthodox version of Marxism-Leninism that has been taught and broadcast in various ways in numerous philosophy departments, in countless didactic ideological handbooks and brochures, etc. The unofficial philosophy, on the other hand, was not necessarily banned, but its circulation was complicated by numerous obstacles and in fact barely tolerated. The two philosophies were, of course, not entirely isolated from each other; some thinkers might have moved from one category to the other at different periods in their careers. The gap in purely quantitative circulation between the editions of official and unofficial philosophy was enormous. This has not prevented the names of official philosophers from being quickly forgotten and known today only to a handful of historians of Soviet philosophy, whereas the legacy of unofficial philosophy has not waned during this entire thirty-year period. E.g. see: “Otdel” [from Rus.: The Department] by A. Arkhangelsky and E. Laskari (Arkhangelsky & Laskari 2010).

228 MICHAIL MAIATSKY (Husserlian) phenomenology in his quest for a dimension on the other side of any sense-making or “normality,”—he wanted to access to the pre-predicative sphere, which he considered as preideological or ideology-less. This explains his interest in the body (following Merleau-Ponty) and in practices of gesture, violence, grotesque, ecstasy… (that differ from spirit, reason, mind, and the like). This is exactly where Podoroga was breaking his path with Mamardašvili who famously shocked his Western (often leftist) colleagues with his appeal to “normality.” Mamardašvili wanted Russia to “simply” return back to normal, which generally meant “Western” or “European,” i.e., “bourgeois.” Podoroga wrote about Mamardašvili: Obviously he submits himself in the auctorial power of a Proust, Kant or Descartes. (Podoroga 2010: 197)

The same can be said about Podoroga himself, just the names of “powerful” figures would be different: Nikolay Gogol, Fëdor Dostoevsky, Andrei Platonov, Sergei Ejzenštejn... And this list was certainly not accidental. In all these authors, the power of the corporeal, of the pre- or un(sub)conscious, was leading the discourse far away from the shores of the social and linguistic normativity. Unlike the linguistically powerful and very Cartesian Mamardašvili, the “Georgian Socrates”, who liked to think while speaking (but in a form as good as ready for publishing), Podoroga’s mode of speech and—what is surprising and symptomatic—writing was often characterized by some kind of the inspired stammering. Much like Dostoevsky, one of Podoroga’s idols about whom there is a well-worn opinion (from Georgy Adamovič, an akmeist, to Ernest Hemingway and further on) formed that he was a genius incapable of writing, Podoroga practiced some kind of resistance to cultivated, controlled, and slick speacking, which was so susceptible to ideology. In this sense, Podoroga was himself following the tradition of God-inspired stammering, namely in the sense of Moses’ “slow of speech and tongue” (Ex. 4:10). It was certainly not a matter of Podoroga’s inability (as his ponderous and perfectly crafted passages demonstrate), but of his performative preference for seeking rather than finding, for asking rather than

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 229 answering, for striving rather than achieving, for “true” rather than “beautiful.”31 What Podoroga and his close colleague Mikhail Ryklin had in common as representatives of the late Soviet and early postSoviet generation was their politically pointed examination of the phenomenon of the Soviet, especially the aesthetic aspect of power/violence. This aspect they demonstrated by the means of Andrei Platonov and Sergei Ejzenštejn (Podoroga) or the Moscow subway stations and alternative contemporary art (Ryklin). The aesthetic in politics and the political in aesthetics were the focus of the unconventional seminar at the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences, which Podoroga led for many years and which was esteemed by its participants—important figures of the next philosophical generation: Oleg Aronson, Igor Čubarov, Keti Čukhrov, Elena Oznobkina (1959-2010), Aleksej Penzin, Elena Petrovskaja, Oksana Timofeeva, and Dmitrij Zamjatin.32 Regardless of the question whether it was a real philosophical school or only a sporadic constellation of intellectuals attending his seminar, this quasi-institutional will of Podoroga sets another difference to the essentially “individualistic” solitude of Mamardašvili. So much for the legacy of the “Georgian Socrates.” Besides Mamardašvili, the legendary Moscow Logical Circle had three other famous members, each of whom went his own particular way. It is worth briefly mentioning their legacy here. Boris Grušin (1929–2007) was among founders of the applied sociology in Russia, especially the one that studied “public opinion” (Grušin 2001–2006). Following his, as well as Yuri Davydov’s, example several philosophers have re-trained or re-qualified themselves as sociologists or as social philosophers, including Natalya Kozlova

31

32

Compare with: “idiosyncratic and brilliant, esoteric in a way considered charismatic by his colleagues, at times blunt and bungling the very prototype of a Russian philosopher” (Buck-Morss 2000: 219). See: Aronson 2007, 2017, 2018; Čubarov 2014; Čukhrov 2011; Oznobkina 2019; Penzin 2012; Petrovskaja 2012, 2019; Timofeeva 2009, 2017; Zamjatin 2004, 2006, 2014.

230 MICHAIL MAIATSKY (1946–2002), Valentina Fedotova, Aleksandr Filippov, Leonid Ionin, Simon Kordonsky, and Grigory Yudin.33 The legacy of the methodologists and “game-technologists” (igrotekhniki) of the Soviet era under the leadership of Georgij Ščedrovickij (1929–1994) was continued by several older and younger followers. The “Institute for Development” (www.fondgp.ru), named after Ščedrovickij, was actively promoting the ideas of Georgij Ščedrovickij through many publications, also from the movement’s archives. The methodologists were able to promote some of their followers far ahead to government and companies, especially in nuclear energy and around the Skolkovo innovation center. One of them, Sergei Kirijenko was a prime minister of Russia (in 1998) and still holds an important position in the government. Before and after the fall of Soviet Union, the works of the methodologists were filled with some specific project-optimism, with the belief in the constructability of reality, and with the idea of some special mission of the intellectual elite that is yet to be educated.34 The legacy of Aleksandr Zinoviev (1922–2006), the fourth member of the Moscow Logical Circle quartet, was important not only in his field of expertise, logic, but also—and especially—in his satirical attitude of a troublemaker (Thomä 2016) or a kind of fool in Christ (Rostova 2008; compare: Münch 2017). This role, which stems from a tradition started by Pëtr Čaadaev and Vassily Rozanov, is still being played by Russian contemporary philosophers like Dmitrij Galkovskij, author of the famous philosophical novel “The Infinite Impasse,” or Fëdor Girenok, or Aleksej Sekackij. A kind of troublemaker 2.0 can also be seen in the figure of an Internet troll, whose mask attracts philosophers more and more.

33 34

Davydov Ju. 1998; Fedotova 2005; Filippov 2008; Ionin 1995, 2010; Yudin 2020; Kordonskij 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, 2016; Kozlova 1996. Hence a special focus on education and training in their movement; see, e.g.: Ščedrovickij et al. 1993; Alekseev N. 2002; Genisaretskij 2002. See also: Grigorishin 2022.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 231 2.3 The return to the “real Marx,” continuation of pre- and postStalin Marxism The Gorbachev’s Perestroika was not an end to the idea of communism, but only the last step toward its de-Stalinization in Russia. The Marxist philosophy had not exhausted its resources and is to be continued. This scenario was in direct continuity with the interrupted “turn” of the Thaw, as it was incarnated especially in the Moscow Logical Circle. The representatives of heterodox Marxism tried to interpret and use the demise of Soviet communist ideology as an occasion for the renewal of Marxism—in conformity with the declared program of the Perestroika, which, after all, aimed at the reform, not the destruction of socialism. However, the reform process has quickly gotten out of hand: very soon, already during the Perestroika, Marx—using his own words about Hegel—was treated as a “dead dog.” Marxism quickly went from being an object of the idolatry to one of the repulsions (Mironov & Tagliagambe 2004). It had to almost withdraw to the underground again (after all, on November 6, 1991, the party was officially banned in Russia!). When Jacques Derrida came to Moscow at the beginning of the 1990s and let the “specters of Marx” hovering over the audience, he met with bitter incomprehension: Haven’t we already been stuffed with this junk enough? Why should we be fed with it by the star guests again? Already in the late Soviet philosophical and other theoretical studies, the texts by Marx-Engels-Lenin served as a necessary but completely ritualized reference. With the fall of the Soviet Union, they were no longer an obligatory locus, which, of course, did not change things substantially either: most professionally established philosophy professors did not know any other philosophical culture nor language. Quite often, the self-proclaimed Marx-haters mastered only the clichéd phraseology of the Soviet textbook Marxism, which poisons philosophical discourse even today, thirty years later. Those relatively few who despite everything wanted to continue practicing Marxism openly can be divided into four directions: the philosophical, the economic, the political, and the cultural ones.

232 MICHAIL MAIATSKY The philosophical direction was a continuation of Evald Ilyenkov’s school35 in the works of his disciples—”humanistically” oriented Lev Naumenko (1933–2020)36, Sergei Mareev (1941– 2019),37 and representatives of the more “anti-humanistic” Rostov School (Makarenko 2002; Potëmkin 2003; Režabek 2007; Šul’man 2009). For all of them the critical history of Soviet heterodox Marxism was in the center of their attention.38 The economic direction emphasized the role that Marx’s analysis of capitalism can still play today, but also tried to show where Marx is no longer sufficient and needs an upgrade.39 Aleksandr Buzgalin founded and directed the Center of Current Marxist Research at MSU. Politically, thinkers and activists of various orientations40 — from the socialist-imperialist leaning Boris Kagarlickij to the radical left anarchist leaning Alexei Cvetkov-Jr.—still in some way link their works to Marx.41 Marx still remains a reference in philosophical debates on culture. On the one hand, there is a somewhat desperate attempt of looking at Mikhail Lifšic (1905–1983), the first (together with Georg Lukács) discoverer and interpreter of Marxian aesthetics, as at a new Virgil to guide a Soviet man through the hellish circles of contemporary art and culture (Arslanov 2015). On the other hand, there are philosophers willing to find the “real” Marx again at the crossroads of alienation and “intellectual production” (Mežuev 2006; Tolstykh 1992), which looks more and more like rearguard action. 35 36 37

38 39

40 41

On that issue, one can refer to the materials of the annual international Ilyenkov meetings (Iljenkovskie čtenija). Naumenko 2012. Mareev 2008 (here Mareev focuses more on ideas of Lev Vygockij, while Ilyenkov’s system of thought is not always explicit); see also Mareeva & Mareev 2013 on the problem of thinking in Marx and in Marxism. On the Spinozistic component of Marxism see: Dudnik 2013; Majdanskij 2005. On that see the Al’ternativy journal and a book The Global Capital by Aleksandr Buzgalin and Andrei Kolganov, in which both authors wanted to continue the work of Marx’s “Capital” (Buzgalin & Kolganov (2004) 2015). Here the left/right division would be rather useless or even misleading. Cvetkov 2011, 2016, 2019a, 2019b; Kagarlickij 2005, 2007, 2017; see also: Budrajtskis 2019, Sofronov 2009; Tolokonnikowa 2016

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 233 In the end, I should conclude that Marxism is doing rather badly in Russia—the country where it formerly celebrated its triumph. The way out of its crisis can perhaps be expected from activists and/or artists who follow the international (post)Marxist debate42 and (still rather shyly) participate in them; among them are the intellectuals from the group “Čto delat’,” the School of Engaged Art, etc. 2.4 The movement toward “normal” philosophical traditions outside Russia Since our philosophizing had a seventy-year delay, we must make it up for what we missed. The supporters of this scenario had very different views on the “normality” of philosophy and the choice of directions. These were often the objects of criticism: aren’t these attempts to realign with the “normal” philosophy the desperate rites of some cargo-cult,43 which emphasizes the fatal dependence—or even epigonism—of Russian philosophy? A huge mediation work has been done by many Russian translators and interpreters. I will just name here some of them: Natalya Avtonomova (who translated works by Foucault and Derrida), Aleksandr Bikbov (Bourdieu), Vitalij Celiščev (analytic philosophy), Aleksandr Černoglazov (Lacan), Timofey Dmitriev (analytic philosophy), Boris Dubin (Ortega y Gasset, Berlin, Blanchot, and Sontag), Sergey Fokin44 (Bataille, Nancy, and LacoueLabarthe), Alexey Garadža (Derrida, Baudrillard, and Harraway), Stanislav Gavrilenko (Latour), Roman Gromov (phenomenology), Yana Yanpol’skaya (Barthes), Sergei Yermakov (Agamben and Loraux), Alexey Kačalov (Baudrillard), Polina Khanova (Land, Harraway, and Law), Georgy Kosikov (1944–2010; French (post-)structuralism), Dmitri Kralečkin (Deleuze, Guattari, Derrida, 42

43 44

Also thanks to several Russian translations of the (neo/post)Marxist authors, such as Alain Badiou, Franco “Bifo” Berardi, Daniel Bensaïd, David Graeber, David Harvey, Toni Negri, Jacques Rancière, Nick Srnicek, Göran Therborn, Paolo Virno, Immanuel Wallerstein, Slavoj Žižek. However, this translation boom only underlines the crisis in contemporary Russian Marxism. See a discussion around the issue in: Sokolov & Titaev 2013. For his reflection on the task of translating Russian philosophy: Fokine 2013.

234 MICHAIL MAIATSKY de Castro, and Morton), Ivan Kurilovič (French New Hegelianism), Viktor Lapickij (Derrida, Lyotard, and Rancière), Maksim Lebedev (analytic philosophy), Svetlana Levit (German cultural sociology), Aleksandr Mikhajlov (1938–1995) (Heidegger), Aleksandr Nikiforov (analytic philosophy), Aleksandr Percev (Nietzsche and Sloterdijk), Aleksandr Pisarev (Harman and Law), Aleksandr Pogonyaylo (Eco, Foucault, and Kojève), Sergei Romaško (Benjamin), Dmitri Skl’adnev-Kuznicyn (German philosophy), Boris Skuratov (1955-2021) (Agamben, Deleuze, Rancière, and Žižek), Natalja Šmatko (Lyotard and Bourdieu), Boris Sokolov (Lyotard), Aleksandr Šurbelev (Heidegger and Marcuse), Jakov Svirskij (Deleuze and Guattari), Galina Vdovina (Catholic philosophy), Irena Vdovina (Levinas and Merleau-Ponty), Viktor Vizgin (Marcel and Foucault), Olga Vlasova (Foucault), and Sergei Zenkin (Barthes, Baudrillard, and Sartre). Same as in other countries, contemporary Russian philosophy is divided between partisans of the “continental” and the “analytic” traditions. The first tradition is represented mainly by phenomenology, but not exclusively (Levina 2013). Thanks to Husserl’s disciple Gustav Špet who published his reviews almost paralleled with the phenomenology’s foundation and its early development (Čubarov 1998), phenomenological thought was well received in Russia, but later, since 1930s, it was interrupted for many years. Due to Nelli Motrošilova, interest in the phenomenology grew among younger Soviet philosophers in 1960s. One of them, Viktor Molčanov, founded the Center for Phenomenological Philosophy at RSHU in the late 1990s. The Yearbook of Phenomenological Philosophy (Ežegodnik po fenomenologičeskoj filosofii) edited by the Center, as well as the Horizon. Studies on phenomenology Journal published in Saint Petersburg, were the main portals of Russian—but internationally inspired—phenomenological research and history of phenomenology. Initially, the studies in the history of the phenomenological movement (Kurennoj 2006) and translations of

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 235 primary phenomenologists’ works45 dominated in Russia. But gradually the share of Russian own phenomenologically inspired research grew (Yampol’skaja 2018; Konačëva 2019; Molčanov 2004; Slinin 2001, 2004). As a Russian specificity, I should mention that here the phenomenology of consciousness dominated in the philosophical research, which continued the respective tendency through the late Soviet period when it was dealt with by Marxist studies of consciousness (Ilyenkov, Mamardašvili) and by David Dubrovsky and other analytically inclined philosophers of consciousness. Only in the last years the phenomenological method begins to be applied also to other social and human problem fields (Gutner 2008; Ščitcova 2016; Černavin 2021). Since the late Soviet times, the philosophical reflection inspired by analytical philosophy, both in the sense of the philosophy of language, and the philosophy of mind, went on. In Russia, Ludwig Wittgenstein46 and later representatives of analytical philosophy47 were and are intensively read and discussed thanks to Marija Kozlova (1933–2011), Aleksandr Grjaznov (1948–2001), Zinaida Sokuler, Vadim Rudnev, and Valerij Anašvili. The studies on the crossroads of cognitive science and philosophy of mind were carried out due to, among others, philosophers from the Moscow Center for Consciousness Research (Moskovskij centr issledovanija soznanija, MCIS). The Center was founded in Moscow in 2009 and published a series of books in cognitive science and philosophy of mind.48 It can be also strongly represented in Siberia (Borisov, Ladov & Surovcev 2010.). This school of thought is characterized by an interest in epistemological, scientific, and logical problems, but also in ethical and political problems (Džokhadze 2006, 2011.).

45 46 47 48

Among the latest publications of the translated works by phenomenologists of different generations is: Jampol’skaja & Šolokhova 2014. On that see: Griaznov 1991; Kozlova M. 1996; Rudnev 2002; Sokuler 1994. See also: Nikonenko 2019. Džokhadze 2001, 2013, 2021. This series included books by: Dubrovskij 2019; Ivanov D. 2013; Vasiljev 2014, 2017; Volkov 2011, 2018.

236 MICHAIL MAIATSKY There persists a prejudice that philosophy in Russia only makes sense as philosophy of culture or even culturosophy.49 Culture, and above all literature, is at its center (see the debates about the literature-centrism of Russian thought). The causes of this prejudice are obvious. On the one hand, the free literary essay has always been the least censored and most successful form of Russian philosophical creativity. On the other hand, its literature is far better known outside Russia than its philosophy. For example, when asked about a possible influence of Russian philosophy on him, Hans-Georg Gadamer has immediately answered with the names of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky! The prejudice has also had institutional reasons. Whether they like it or not, with rare exceptions, Slavists—linguists and literary scholars—are responsible also for teaching Russian philosophy as part of the cultural landscape. They, in turn, are more inclined to emphasize the literary side of philosophizing, which is closer and more understandable to them. Through the collegial relationship, Western Slavists are more likely to be connected to their disciplinary colleagues in Russia—philologists, writers, poets— who are only happy to confirm this perspective. Thus is a prejudice, which Loren Graham has been vigorously fighting in his works: no “Sputnik” can take off by the force of poetical inspiration or Sobornost’-Dukhovnost’ alone, and neither scientific achievements, nor the whole process of modernization can be understood if “culture” is interpreted only in the sense of fiction, spirituality, and philology. However, what I said above does not exclude the fact that intensive studies in philosophy of culture have also been undertaken in Russia in the last thirty years—and with significant changes in this field. In the late Brezhnev era kul’turologija served as a vague add-on and a substitute for the lame Marxist-Leninist dogma. It was a covert realization of Mandelstam’s “longing for world culture” (toska po mirovoj kul’ture), which was a genuine

49

This term seems to have been invented by Renate Lachmann in the mid-1980s: Uffelmann 1999.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 237 secular religion of the late Soviet intelligentsia. Here, roughly simplified, several directions can be distinguished: 1) General universalist cultural outlook. The most prominent figures here would be Vladimir Bibler (1918–2000), Viačeslav Vs. Ivanov (1929–2017), Leonid Batkin (1932– 2016), Vadim Rabinovič (1935–2013), Aleksandr Ogurcov (1936–2014), Aleksandr Dobrokhotov, Ilya Dokučaev, Svetlana Levit, Svetlana Neretina, and Viktor Vizgin.50 2) Postmodern-sensitized approach to culture was typical for Ilya Ilyin (1940–2013), Aleksandr Djakov, Dmitry Khaustov, Viačeslav Kuricyn, Nadežda Man’kovskaya, Aleksandr Pavlov, and Ol’ga Vajnštejn.51 3) Sociological analysis of culture. The standard in this field is set by the School of cultural studies at HSE, founded in 2007 and headed by Vitalij Kurennoj.52 4) Various anthropologically or axiologically oriented cultural studies.53 The field of Speculative Realism (aka Object-Oriented Ontology) is known to be not a unified discipline, but rather a loose community gathered around the issue of realism (not in the sense of the universalia debate, certainly), the critique of correlationism (Descartes, Kant, phenomenology), and renewed, more ontologyfriendly links between philosophy and sciences under the double aegis of Heidegger and Deleuze. Here, following works by Brassier, Gabriel, Harman, Latour, Meillassoux, and others, a whole group of younger Russian philosophers is active since 2010s.54

50

51

52 53 54

See: Batkin 2000; Bibler 1991, 1997, 2002 (see also: Akhutin & Berliand 2009); Dobrokhotov 2016; Ivanov Viač. Vs. 2004; Levit 2007; Neretina & Ogurcov 2000, 2006; Rabinovič 2008; Vizgin 2004. See perhaps the best anthology of cultural philosophy of the 1990s: Vizgin 2001. Djakov 2005, 2008, 2010a, b, c, 2012, 2013; Ilyin 1996, 1998; Khaustov 2018; Kuricyn 2000; Man’kovskaja 2000; Pavlov 2019; Vajnštejn 2005, 2017; also see: Gricanov & Možejko 2001; Gubman 2009. Deminceva 2008; Dobrokhotov 2016; Gluščenko & Kurennoj 2013; Kormina 2019; Kukulin 2015; Levčenko 2015; Rondarev 2000. See Dokučaev 2009, 2010; Kagan 1997; Rumiancev 2005; Tul’činskij 2007. Kralečkin & Ušakov 2001, 2010; Kralečkin 2020; Regev 2015, 2016.

238 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Last but not least, the feminist studies of gender and care issues should be mentioned—especially those conducted by Elena Gapova, Tatjana Goričeva, Ol’gerta Kharitonova, Vitalij Lekhcier, Alla Mitrofanova, Maria Rakhmaninova, Tatjana Ščitcova, Anna Temkina, Almira Usmanova, Elena Zdravomyslova, and Irina Žerebkina.55 Interesting and for philosophy highly productive processes take also place in the transdisciplinary and marginal zones, namely at the intersections of philosophy with anthropology,56 sociology,57 political science,58 geography and urban studies,59 history,60 psychology, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy,61 history of

55

56 57 58

59 60 61

See: Gapova 2016; Goričeva 1992; Inišev & Ščitcova 2010; Kharitonova 2014, 2016; Lechcier 2018; Rachmaninova 2016, 2020; Ščitcova 2016; Temkina 2008; Temkina, Rotkirch & Zdravomyslova 2009; Ushakin 2007; Usmanova 2007; Zdravomyslova 2015; Žerebkina 2003. See also: Cheauré & Heyder 2002, and the special issue of: Studies in East European Thought, 2003, 55(1). Note also the Colta.ru project “Filosofija: Ženskij rod” (Philosophy: Female Gender), led by Diana Gasparian, Oksana Gončarko, Valerija Kosiakova, Tatjana Levina, and Maria Rachmanova, as well as the “Škola Feminisma” (School of Feminism) of Ol’gerta Kharitonova. See: Epple 2020; Kharkhordin & Volkov 2008; Mochov 2018; Trubina & Ušakin 2009; Utechin 2004. See: Batygin 1995; Bikbov 2014; Derlugyian 2013; Kaplun 2016; Rozov 2011; Vakhštain 2011. See: Glukhov 2014; Goriainov 2018; Kapustin 2019; Magun 2008; Malachov 2001, 2014; Marej 2017; Puščaev 2009; see also numerous articles by Kirill Martynov in Novaya Gazeta and other media. See: Glazyčev 2011; Kaganskij 2001; Revzin 2019; Rodoman 1999; Zamiatin 2004, 2006, 2014. See: Olejnikov 2003; Poletaev & Saveljeva 2003–2006. See: Etkind 1996; Kosilova 2014, 2016, 2021; Lejbin 2017; Mazin 2010, 2018; Ol’šanskij 2016; Puzyrej 2005; Rudnev 2007; Savčenkova 2004, 2014; Smulianskij 2019, 2021; Vasiliuk 2003; Zimovec 1996, 2003.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 239 ideas,62 literary and linguistic studies,63 media theory,64 photographic and film studies,65 economics,66 and poetry.67 As in other national literatures, genres flourish in Russia that may well be called para-philosophical: be it metanarrativist (Andrei Bitov, Viktor Erofeev), ironic (Viktor Pelevin), or historiosophic (Vladimir Šarov) novels, as well as meta-documentary prose (Maria Stepanova) and existential essays (Marianna Gejde). 2.5 “Thinking the Russian way” (historiosophy, geopolitics) This scenario is the continuation and actualization of the Slavophilic and Eurasian ways of thinking: Marxism-Leninism had diverted our philosophy from the reflection on our destiny and our peculiarity. The question arises, naturally, who to understand by “us” and how to define these “us.” The thousands of pages written on “the Russian identity” during these years only remotely can be considered as philosophy (or at least what is called philosophy in the West). Parallel to the infamous concept of the “Russian linguistic worldview” (russkjaja jazykovaja kartina mira, RJaKM), which was so popular at the faculties of Russian language and literature, and in some cases is still accepted today, there are hundreds of graduate philosophers striving to deal with the “Russian worldview,” the “Russian mentality,” “Russian civilisatory paradigm” and the like. With the mobilization of local philosophers, this search was often reproduced on a regional level

62 63

64 65 66 67

For example: Dmitriev A. & Saveljeva 2015; Dmitriev A., Samutina & Višlenkova 2017; Grigorjeva 2012; Kozlov 2020; Svetlikova 2005; Zenkin 2011. See: Avtonomova 2008, 2009, 2011; Azarova 2010a, b; Dubin 2004, 2015; Dubin & Gudkov 1994; Feščenko & Koval’ 2014; Gačev 2000; Gussejnov 2012; Nogovicyn 2016; Ol’šanskij 2021; Venediktova 2017; Zenkin 2012a, b. It is worth mentioning that Mikhail Bakhtin as well as Yuri Lotman are now officially considered philosophers by their inclusion in the series “The Philosophy of Russia of the 2nd Half of the 20th Century” (ed. by Vladislav Lektorskij); henceforth, so to speak, they are officially considered philosophers: Kantor 2009; Makhlin 2010. See: Davydov S. 2020; Kurtov 2014; Savčuk 2012. Kurennoj 2009; Pavlov 2014; Petrovskaja 2015; Yampolsky 1996, 2000, 2001, 2004, 2020; see also the Cineticle online journal. See: Boldyrev, Mazin & Pogrebnjak 2016. Lekhcier 2020; Nemcev 2018; Osminkin 2015; Sedakova 2011.

240 MICHAIL MAIATSKY in order to find or construct the Tambov, Tula, or Volga identity.68 And while discussing the unfathomable depths of the Russian soul, they refer not only to Nilus of Sora (1433–1508) or Ivan Ilyin (1883– 1954), but also to many the contemporary concepts such as discours (Foucault), imagined communities (Anderson), social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann), civilization (Huntington), and nation branding (Anholt). All this has been thrown into the service of that Pax Rossica (alias Russica) which has finally lost the slightest bit of legitimacy in February 2022. The attractiveness of power, proximity to or distance from the authority are the formative conditions for the existence of political philosophy in Russia. Several think tanks (analitičeskie centry) have been established and financed from the state budget (Balajan & Sungurov 2017). Their ideological profiles are quite diverse— from “patriots” to “liberals”—since, as many say it, the Kremlin “has several towers” (i.e. it has several centers of decision and financement).69 The representatives of most think tanks came to intellectual debates annually at the Ways of Russia (Puti Rossii) symposium.70 Each Kremlin “tower” has a correspondingly minded philosopher at their disposal; however, it is not at all rare for one and the same philosopher to serve two or more “towers”, simultaneously or successively. Indeed, transversal factors such as friendship or collegial relations often prove to be more important than one’s own ideological profile. This was especially true for the period before the annexation of Crimea, which led to a stronger polarization of the intellectual milieu. A more detailed, chronological analysis would be necessary here: the relationship between those in power and the intellectuals changed radically and several times during these thirty years in Russia. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the demand for politically

68 69

70

See on this: Laruelle 2018. Western readers are familiar with the phenomenon of polycracy primarily through the studies of of the Nazi state apparatus by L. Neumann, P. Hüttenberger, and others. This annual symposium was co-organized by Šaninka (Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences) since 1993, and their materials were published by NLO Publishing House.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 241 “useful” philosophy was very strong, which was not surprising after decades of “ideocracy.” The need for a new nation- and stateideas was explicitly formulated, among others, by president Boris Yeltsin, for example, when the competition An Idea for Russia (Ideja dlja Rossii) was announced by Rossiyskaya gazeta in July 1997. The intellectual service to the authorities has been manifested in many ways: in historiosophical, political, religious, cultural and literarily works, for example. The historiosophical studies focused on some kind of a “destiny” self-analysis attempting to deduce possible consequences from typical or repeating historical situations (Mikhail Gefter, Aleksandr Akhiezer, and others) (Achiezer 1998; Gefter 1991; Novikova & Sizemskaja 2004; Vackhitov 2017.). Political theory unsurprisingly polarized from the conservativeaggressive anti-Western geopolitics71 (Aleksandr Panarin (1940– 2003), Aleksandr Dugin) to the doctrine of transition to democracy (Igor’ Pantin, Alexei Salmin). On the religious axis, once again, the archconservative, even xenophobic Orthodox Christianity opposes a modern, liberal version of theology: for example, the controversy between Metropolitan Ioann Snyčëv and Konstantin Dušenov, on one side, against Aleksandr Men’, Sergei Averincev, later Andrei Kuraev, and Andrei Desnickij, on the other side. On the literarycultural scene, the “patriotic”-conservative critique and literary theorists like Vadim Kožinov (1930-2001), Stanislav Kuniaev, and Pëtr Palievskij (1932–2019), as well as the Naš sovremennik Journal and later the Literaturnaja gazeta, have formed the core of resistance to the opening and emancipating processes in culture and civil society. The next period was marked by the philosophical-political doctrine of “sovereign democracy,” which emerged in the mid2000s. It was elaborated by Vladislav Surkov, who was very influential at that time and followed ideas of some political

71

This “science” has experienced a real boom in the post-Soviet period. It may also have inspired or been inspired by various international initiatives, such as Common Economic Space from Lisbon to Vladivostok; see, e.g.: Drachevsky 2016.

242 MICHAIL MAIATSKY philosophers.72 The profile of a (political) philosopher, to some extent, was merging during this period with that of a political technologist—the post-Soviet avatar of the idealistic-cynical king’s advisor (or spin doctor), a figure between a publicist and a lobbyist, or even “between a sociologist and a blackmailer” (according to the expression on the Internet platform dekoder.org). The interplay between state power and intelligentsia begins with the wellmeaning intention of influencing or even directing the rulers, continues in mutual inter-penetration, and ends with the instrumentalization of intellectuals by state authorities. Thus, the place of intellectuals has now been taken by outspoken ideologues. The dubious concept of “sovereign democracy” developed into something like “civilizational genetic code”73 in the 2010s. This is Russia’s most valuable asset, which would safeguard it from the insidious West and its corrosive LGBT genetic mutations.74 Vladimir Pastukhov, Russian political scientist who teaches in London, described the nowadays ideological eclecticism in Russia as a mixture of authoritarian paternalism, pan-Slavism, the cult of victory (in World War II), the myth of the “deep people,” the Eurasianism, left- and right-wing rhetoric, decorated with a Versailles trauma-like revisionist syndrome, xenophobia, and the Orthodox Christian messianism.75 These trends are directly embodied in the war unleashed against Ukraine and the (rather pathetic) attempts to legitimize it ideologically. 2.6 History of philosophy as the genuine philosophy This scenario was introduced under the motto that philosophical “prehistory” had been neglected for too long in favor of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy, and it was therefore time to give a 72

73 74 75

See: Cymbursky 2007; Garadja 2006; Kokoshin 2006; Pavlovsky 2014, 2019; Remizov 2016; Rutkevich 2000; Surkov 2008; Sovereign Democracy 2006 (sic! without information about the editors). Is this use of the term a belated rehabilitation of once-repressed genetics or the final nail in the coffin for Lotman’s code semiotics? See: Ščipkov 2017, and the entire set of works by the members of ominous Izborsk club. See: https://mbk-news.appspot.com/sences/deep-mind-state-borba/; see also: Pastukhov 2012, as well as: Chebankova 2020, for the general overview.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 243 new splendor to the history of philosophy, to study and to teach it not as a path to Marx’ theory,76 but in its own value. In one way or another, however, the history of philosophy has always had its place in Russia or in the Soviet Union, even in the worst times.77 It also played a decisive role in the dismantling of the didactical and ideologized Marxism. With the end of the official ideology, it was high time to refresh and modernize the discipline. It remained a stable currency even in the bleak period of an abrupt post-Soviet reorientation when the solution was proposed to consider “philosophy as a history of philosophy” (Sokolov V. 2010). But after years of subjugation and distortion in favor of the ideological dogma, there was an urgent need to reclaim and appropriate the text-critical and hermeneutic foundations of the discipline. In order for philosophy to prosper, to develop fruitfully, and to do justice to its past treasures, one would first need to study a filosofovedenie (a philosophology, so to say), according to the word coinage by Erich Solovjëv,78 who succeeded, like very few others since late Soviet times, in successfully uniting “systematic” philosophy with the history of philosophy (Solovjëv E. 2005). In the same vein, it is also worth mentioning Iskra Andreeva (1925–2017), Piama Gajdenko (1934–2021), Arseniy Gulyga (1921–1996), Nelli Motrošilova (1934–2021), Anatoly Akhutin, and Aleksandr Dobrokhotov. In the field of the history of philosophy, the progress within thirty years is downright spectacular in Russia. This concerns both the general methodology79 and thematic analyses80 of the philosophical past. Further on, I will only sketch a few areas of these studies.81

76

77 78 79 80 81

Here we should mention the doyens of the late and post-Soviet history of philosophy, who remained active long after the collapse of the USSR: Teodor Ojzerman (1914–2017) and Vasilij Sokolov (1919–2017). On that see the well-known study by van der Zweerde 1997. See an interview (2004) with him in: Lektorsky 2010: 311. See: Berestov, Vol’f & Domanov 2019; Krotov 2018. See: e.g. the set of studies on the free will: Stolyarov 1999; on time and eternity: Černiak 2014; Gajdenko 2006. More on that one can find in: Mesyats & Egorochkin 2014.

244 MICHAIL MAIATSKY In the study of Greek philosophy, for example, the intellectual legacy of Aleksej Losev (1893–1988) dominated in the Soviet period. Building on his legacy—and freeing themselves from it—in the late Soviet and post-Soviet period some scholars’ research proved to be significant; among them are Tatyana Vasilyeva (1942–2002), Aleksandr Zajcev (1926–2000), Anatoly Akhutin, Tatyana Borodaj, Andrei Lebedev, Yuri Šičalin, Aleksandr Stoliarov, and Leonid Žmud’82. For this area of studies, the major platforms were the annual colloquium “The Universe of Platonic Thought” (Universum platonovskoj mysli, published since 1993), the AKAΔHMEIA Almanac (published since 1997 by Roman Svetlov and Aleksej Cyb), the ΣΧΟΛΗ. Philosophical Antiquity and the Classical Tradition Journal (published since 2007 by Evgenij Afonasin), and The Platonic Studies Journal (published by the Platonic Society, founded by Irina Protopopova and Roman Svetlov). Nowadays, those interested in ancient philosophy have at their disposal an evergrowing number of excellent translations and monographs from the last thirty years.83 Unlike the ancient philosophy area of studies, there was hardly any significant medieval or scholastic philosophy studies in the Soviet Union. Therefore, the main result of the last thirty years was to raise the bar for quality of the studies higher and higher. The works by Violetta Gajdenko (1940–2010), Mikhail Garncev or Svetlana Neretina are to be considered rather as informative and popularizing attempts. Only Galina Vdovina can be said to reach the level of respectable scholars of the mediaeval philosophy (Vdovina 2009, 2019, 2020). The achievements of younger researchers, like Aleksej Apollonov, Konstantin Bandurovskij, Mikhail Khor’kov, Dmitrij Fedčuk, Vitalij Ivanov, Danila Maslov, 82 83

Akhutin 2007; Borodaj 2008; Lebedev 2014; Šičalin 2000, 2018; Stoljarov 1995; Vasiljeva 2008; Zajcev 1993; Žmud’ 1997, 2006, 2012. Unfortunately, I must decline to list translations (e.g., those conducted by Nina Braginskaya and Svetlana Mesiac) and point out the most important studies of the Greek philosophy: Abdullaev 2007; Bugaj 2016; Glukhov 2014; Junusov 2017; Močalova 2000; Orlov 2011; Petrov 2007, 2013; Pleškov 2021; Serëgin 2005; Sergeev K. & Slinin 1991; Solopova 2002; Svetlov & Alymova 2019; Vol’f 2007; Volkova 2017. As for Plato studies, see the review at: Svetlov & Protopopova 2020.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 245 and Dmitrij Šmonin84—give all good reasons to hope that the field of medieval history of philosophy, as well as the adjacent field of Byzantine philosophy studies,85 will blossom one day in Russia, too. After the prominent research of Piama Gajdenko and Vitalij Kuznecov,86 the new, high-quality studies of modern philosophy emerged in Russia. Among the key figures I should mention Ovanes Akopian, Igor’ Dmitriev, Julia Ivanova, Anatolij Jakovlev, Valentin Jakovlev, Artëm Krotov, Sergej Sekundant, Konstantin Sergeev, Pavel Sokolov, and Vadim Vasiljev.87

3

Chronology

The break with the Soviet period was ultimately not as abrupt as it seemed at the beginning. There was also a certain continuity: several tendencies that were already alive, albeit in a semiclandestine form—such as cosmism, dialogicity, or religious philosophy—were able to develop fully only in the post-Soviet period. Different sectors and problem fields of philosophy, as well as the generations of philosophers developed “at different speed” during these thirty years, making a general chronology hardly possible. This is why I can only schematically divide the post-Soviet period into three stages vaguely corresponding to the decades. 1990s: The need in and search for the identity. The first postSoviet decade was a time of confusion, but also of freedom and unprecedented possibilities for philosophers. However, there were also the institutional and financial difficulties, and the greatest challenge for philosophy among them was the imperative to reorient or even to re-identify itself. The Soviet philosophy was dead. 84

85 86 87

See: Appolonov 2004; Bandurovskij 2011; Fedčuk 2019; Ivanov Vit. 2010, 2018, 2021; Khor’kov 2003, 2007, 2015; Maslov 2017, 2019; Šmonin 2006. See also: Ivanova & Rutkevič 2009. See: Benevič & Biriukov 2009; Biriukov 2016, 2020; Gončarko 2021; Lurje 2006. See: Gajdenko 1997, 2000a, b, 2006; Kuznecov Vit. 2006. See: Akopian 2018, 2020; Dmitriev I. 1999, 2006a, b, 2015; Ivanova 2012,; Ivanova & Sokolov 2011, 2014; Jakovlev A. 2013; Jakovlev V. 2019, 2020; Krotov 2012; Sekundant 2013; Sergeev K. 1993; Vasiljev 2020. For the studies in history of philosophy of German Idealism and later, see above footnote 4.

246 MICHAIL MAIATSKY What was to replace it? If the Soviet philosophy was “philosophy” only in quotation marks, can there emerge another, a “genuine” one in Russia? Perhaps this country was the soil quite productive for literature, but too arid for philosophy? “Since the forgotten times the Russian philosophy has been accused”—equally by a wider Russian audience and by philosophers—”of not being a philosophy at all” (Uffelmann 1999: 27.). Seldom has this reproach been so tangible as during this decade. 2000s: The normalization. Debates about the (im)possibility of Russian philosophy did not yet die when philosophical life returned to a new normality. The philosophical life became much more diverse and much more internationalized, even globalized. Philosophical pluralism manifested itself in the breadth of topics and ideas, as well as in significant increase in the number of publishers and journals. And there was a constantly increasing number of students who pursued part or all their careers abroad, without ceasing to write or to speak in Russian and for Russian audiences. 2010s: The digitalization. In a continuation of the previous stage and like in other countries, the digital turn has had a substantial impact on the philosophy, the entire set of social sciences and humanities, and on philosophical practice itself in Russia. An overwhelming variety of media and information channels is now available to both the philosophy’s connoisseurs and the philosophizing authors. Philosophical expression has enormously benefited from this diversity, all the more so through a considerable proliferation of genres and modes of expression.

4

In Conclusion

The last thirty years in Russia have been the scene of immense changes, at all levels and in all fields, including philosophy. The beginning of this period was marked by an acute sense of the “abnormality” of the previous era, by the feeling of the lacks in the received philosophical education, which was affecting even the most prominent thinkers on the time. The new orientation offered the hope, but also fueled the fear of an all too brutal encounter with

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 247 the new reality. It is no coincidence that the lines of the iconic rock musician were so often quoted in those years: Where are they, these new savages, Who’d wipe us off the face of the earth?88

Fortunately or not, the meeting and the coexistence of the last Soviet and the first post-Soviet philosophical generations took place without mutual annihilation. In the worst cases, the parties politely ignored each other; in the best ones, the experience of the former was harmoniously complemented by the curiosity and boldness of the latter. But as we have seen, during those thirty years there was both the interest of young people in the Soviet unofficial philosophy and the curiosity of many still active Soviet philosophers for new names, themes, and their tendencies. As a conclusion of the first thirty years after the Soviet Union’s dissolution, I can say that philosophy has gained enormously from losing its guaranteed place in the power and ideological structures (or in the underground levels), and that it got a chance to find and assert itself, its task and its meaning anew. P.S. (May 26, 2022). To be honest, I am glad that this text was written before the February 24, 2022, in the summer of 2021, when the end of the “post-Soviet condition” was, although awaited, yet not foreseen in concrete terms. Otherwise, it could have been tempting to retrospectively examine the entire thirty-year history in light of this tragical caesura, which would have been erroneous both in substance and method. However, today, after Russia’s ill-fated, treacherous and criminal attack on neighboring (and independent for thirty years) Ukraine, it is impossible not to look for prerequisites of this event in the past and not to think about the consequences. Some elements of such preconditions the reader will find in the text. I will only add the mention of the attempted hold-up on the Institute of Philosophy in December 2021, when activists from the conservative-orthodox 88

Words from Boris Grebenščikov’s song “The Rock’n’Roll Heroes” (Blue Album, 1981).

248 MICHAIL MAIATSKY wing tried to place their own person in the director’s chair by force. This attempt failed, but it is obvious now that, in the short term, the authorities will try to force philosophy into political conformity under conditions of (as yet) undeclared martial law. It should be also noted that a high proportion of philosophers (exact statistics are impossible) quite voluntarily took part in this process. In the medium term, philosophy, like economy, consumption, education, culture, will be artificially cut off and then forced to “catch up” with world processes. A sad conclusion to a thirty-year period that was full of interesting endeavors and rich in promises and hopes.

Bibliography Abdullaev, E. (2007). Idei Platona meždu Elladoj i Sogdianoj: očerki rannej istorii platonizma na Srednem Vostoke [from Rus.: Plato’s Ideas between Hellas and Sogdia: Studies in the Early History of Platonism in the Middle East]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Akhutin, A. (2012). Eksperiment i priroda [from Rus.: Experiment and Nature]. Moskva: Nauka. Ackermann, A. et al. (eds.). (1995). Orte des Denkens. Neue russische Philosophie [from German: Places of Thought. New Russian Philosophy]. Wien: Passagen. Ajrapetian, V. (2001). Tolkuja slovo. Opyt germenevtiki po-russki [from Rus.: The interpretation of the word. An Attempt of Hermeneutics in Russian]. Moskva: Jazyki slav’anskoj kul’tury. Akhiezer, A. (1998). Rossija: kritika istoričeskogo opyta (sociokul’turnaja dinamika Rossii) [from Rus.: Russia: Critique of Historical Experience (The Sociocultural Dynamics of Russia)]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf. Akhutin, A. (1997). T’ažba o Bytii [from Rus.: A Legal Dispute about Being]. Moskva: Russkoe fenomenonologičeskoe obščestvo. Akhutin, A. (2005). Povorotnye vremena [from Rus.: Turnaround Times]. Moskva: Nauka. Akhutin, A. (2007). Antičnye načala filosofii [from Rus.: Ancient Origins of Philosophy]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Akhutin, A., Berliand, I. (eds.). (2009). Vladimir Solomonovič Bibler. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 249 Akopian, O. (2018). Volki v ovečjich škurach. Rassuždenija protiv proricatel’noj astrologii i renessansnaja mysl’ [from Rus.: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing. Arguments Against Divinatory Astrology and Renaissance Thought]. Moskva: CGI. Akopian, O. (2020). Debating the Stars in the Italian Renaissance: Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s Disputationes adversus astrologiam divinatricem and Its Reception. Leiden: Brill. Alekseev, N. (2002). Refleksija i formirovanie sposoba rešenija zadač [from Rus.: Reflection and the Methods of Problem-Solving]. Moskva: KPSTP Alekseev, P. (2009). Filosofy Rossii načala 21-go stoletija: biografii, idei, trudy [from Rus.: Philosophers of Russia at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Biographies, Ideas, Works]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Andreev, D., Neklessa, A. (eds.). (2012). Russkaja identičnost’. Doroga žizni [from Rus.: from Rus. : Russian Identity. The Life Path]. Moskva: INTELROS — Intellektual’naja Rossija. Appolonov, A. (2004). Latinskij averroizm XIII v. [from Rus.: The Latin Averroism of the 13th century]. Moskva: IFRAN. Arkhangelskij, A. (2016). Nesovetskaja filosofija v SSSR [from Rus.: Non-Soviet Philosophy in the USSR] Arzamas, n.d., https://arzamas.academy/ courses/1. (accessed June 3, 2022). Arkhangelskij, A., Laskari, E. (2010). Otdel [from Rus.: The Department]. Dokumentarfilm. Aronson, O. (2007). Kommunikativnyi obraz (Kino. Literatura. Filosofiia) [from Rus.: from Rus. : The Communicative Image (Cinema. Literature. Philosophy)]. Moskva: NLO. Aronson, O. (2017). Sily ložnogo. Opyty nepolitičeskoi demokratii [from Rus.: The Forces of Wrong. Attempts at Apolitical Democracy]. Moskva: Falanster. Aronson, O. (2018). Kino i filosofiia: ot teksta k obrazu [from Rus.: Cinema and Philosophy: From Text to Image]. Moskva: IFRAN. Arslanov, V. (2015). Suščee i Ničto. Postmodernizm i ‘Tertium datur’ russkoj kul’tury XX veka [from Rus.: Being and Nothingness. Postmodernism and ‘Tertium datur’ in Russian Culture of the 20th Century]. SanktPeterburg: Nauka. Avtonomova, N. (2008). Poznanie i perevod. Opyty filosofii jazyka [from Rus.: Cognition and Translation. Attempts at the Philosophy of Language]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Avtonomova, N. (2009). Otkrytaja struktura [from Rus.: The Open Structure]: Jakobson–Bachtin–Lotman–Gasparov. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Avtonomova, N. (2011). Filosofskij jazyk Žaka Derrida [from Rus.: The Philosophical Language of Jacques Derrida]. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

250 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Azarova, N. (2010a). Jazyk filosofii i jazyk poezii: dviženie navstreču [from Rus.: Language of Philosophy and Language of Poetry: a Mutual Approach]. Moskva: Gnosis/Logos. Azarova, N. (2010b). Tipologičeskij očerk jazyka russkich filosofskich tekstov XX veka [from Rus.: Typological Study of the Language of Russian Philosophical Texts of the 20th century]. Moskva: Gnosis/Logos. Balajan, A., Sungurov, A. (2016). Fabriki mysli i ekspertnye soobščestva [from Rus.: Think Tanks and Expert Communities]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Bandurovskij, K. (2011). Bessmertie duši v filosofii Fomy Akvinskogo [from Rus.: The Immortality of the Soul in the Philosophy of Thomas Aquinas]. Moskva: RGGU. Barkovskij, P., Mackevič, P. (2011). Universitet: diskussija ob osnovanijach [from Rus.: The University: A Discussion on the Foundations]. Мinsk: Logvinov. Batkin, L. (2000). Evropejskij čelovek naedine s soboj. Očerki o kul’turnoistoričeskich osnovanijach i predelach ličnogo samosoznanija: Abel’ar. Eloiza. Petrarka. Lorenco Velikolepnyj. Makjavevelli [from Rus.: The European Man in the Encounter with Himself. Studies on CulturalHistorical Foundations and Limits of Self-Consciousness: Abaelardus. Heloïse. Petrarch. Lorenzo the Magnificent. Machiavelli]. Moskva: RGGU. Batygin, G. (1995). Lekcii po metodologii sociologičeskich issledovanij [from Rus.: Lectures on the Methodology of Sociological Research]. Moskva: Aspekt. Batygin, G., Kozlova, L., Swiderski, E. (eds.). (2005). Social’nye nauki v postovetskoj Rossii [from Rus.: Social Sciences in Post-Soviet Russia]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Baumeister, A. (2014). Bytie i Blago [from Rus.: Being and The Good]. Winnyzja: T. Baranovskaja. Bažanov, V. (1999). Philosophy in Post-Soviet Russia (1992-1997). Background, Present State, and Prospects. Studies in East-European Thought 15: 4–29. Benevič, G., Biriukov, D. (eds.). (2009). Antologija vostočno-christianskoj bogoslovskoj mysli. Ortodoksija i geterodoksija. V 2-ch tt. [from Rus.: Anthology of Eastern Christian Theological Thought. Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy. In 2 vols.]. Moskva: Nikeja. Berestov, I., Vol’f, M., Domanov, O. (2019). Analitičeskaja istorija filosofii: metody i issledovanija [from Rus.: Analytical History of Philosophy: Methods and Studies]. Novosibirsk: Ofset TM.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 251 Bibikhin, V. (1993). Jazyk filosofii [from Rus.: The Language of Philosophy]. Moskva: Progress. Bibikhin, V. (1995). Mir [from Rus.: The World]. Tomsk: Vodolej. Bibikhin, V. (1998a). Novyj Renessans [from Rus.: The New Renaissance]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija. Bibikhin, V. (1998b). Uznaj sebja [from Rus.: Know Yourself]. SanktPeterburg: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2001). Slovo i sobytie [from Rus.: Word and Event]. Moskva: Editorial URSS. Bibikhin, V. (2003). Drugoe načalo [from Rus. : The Other Beginning]. Moskva: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2005a). Vvedenie v filosofiju prava [from Rus.: Introduction to the Philosophy of Law]. Moskva: IFRAN. Bibikhin, V. (2005b). Wittgenstein. Smena aspekta [from Rus.: Wittgenstein. The Aspect’s Change]. Moskva: St. Thomas Institut of Philosophy, Theology and History. Bibikhin, V. (2008). Vnutrennjaja forma slova [from Rus.: The Inner Word Form]. Moskva: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2009a). Čtenie filosofii [from Rus.: Reading of Philosophy]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2009b). Rannij Khajdegger. Materialy k seminaru [from Rus.: The Early Heidegger. Materials for the Seminar]. Moskva: St. Thomas Institut of Philosophy, Theology and History. Bibikhin, V. (2010). Energija [from Rus.: The Energy]. Moskva: St. Thomas Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History. Bibikhin, V. (2011). Les (hyle) [from Rus.: The Forest (hyle)]. SanktPeterburg: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2012). Sobstvennost’. Filosofija svoego [from Rus.: The Property. The Philosophy of the Own]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Bibikhin, V. (2015). Pora (vremja-bytie) [from Rus.: It’s Time (Time-Being)]. Sankt-Peterburg: V. Dal’. Bibikhin, V., Sedakova, O. (2019). Pis’ma 1992-2004 (sostavlenie i predislovie V. Fajbyšenko) [from Rus.: Letters 1992-2004 (Selection and Epilogue by V. Fajbyšenko)]. Sankt-Peterburg: Ivan Limbach. Bibler, V. (1997). Na gran’ach logiki kul’tury [from Rus.: The Facets of Cultural Logic]. Moskva: RFO. Bibler, V. (2002). Zamysly [from Rus.: Ideas and Plans]. Moskva: RGGU.

252 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Bikbov, A. (2014). Grammatika porjadka: istoričeskaja sociologija pon’atij, kotorye menjajut našu realnost’ [from Rus.: Grammar of Order: Historical Sociology of Concepts that Change our Reality]. Moskva: HSE. Biriukov, D. (2016). Pričastnost’ i universalii v vostočno-christianskoj mysli [from Rus.: Communion and Universals in Eastern Christian Thought]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Biriukov, D. (Hg.) (2016). Logika i ontologija v vizantijskoj dogmatičeskoj polemike [from Rus.: Logic and Ontology in the Byzantine Dogmatic Debate]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Boldyrev, I., Herrmann-Pillath, C. (2014). Hegel, Institutions, and Economics. Performing the Social. Abingdon, N.Y.: Routledge. Borisov, E., Ladov, V., Surovcev, V. (2010). Jazyk, soznanie, mir: očerki komparativnogo analiza fenomenologii i analitičeskoj filosofii [from Rus.: Language, Consciousness, World: Outlines of a Comparative Analysis of Phenomenology and Analytic Philosophy]. Vilnius: EHU. Borodaj, T. (2008). Roždenie filosofskogo pon’atija. Bog i materija v dialogach Platona [from Rus.: The Birth of the Philosophical Concept. God and Matter in Plato’s Dialogues]. Moskva: S. Savin. Bosenko, A. (2016). Vrem’a bez svidetelej. Nekotorye aspekty transcendental’noj estetiki [from Rus.: Time without Witnesses. Some Aspects of Transcendental Aesthetics]. Kiew: Kajala; Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Buck‐Morss, S. (2000). Dreamworld and Catastrophe. The Passing of Mass Utopia in East and West. Cambridge, MA; London: The MIT Press. Budrajtskis, I. (2020). Mir, kotoryj postroil Chantington, i v kotorom živëm my vse [from Rus.: The World Huntington Built and in Which We all Live]. Moskva: Ciolkovskij. Bugaj, D. (2016). Edinstvo platonovskogo “Gosudarstva” [from Rus.: The Unity of the Platonic “State”]. Moskva: A. Vorobjëv. Buzgalin, A., Kolganov, A. (2015). Globalnyj kapital. T. 1: Metodologija: po tu storonu pozitivizma, postmodernizma i ekonomičeskogo imperializma; t. 2: Globalnaja gegemonia kapitala i eë predely [from Rus.: Global Capital. Vol. 1: Methodology: beyond positivism, postmodernism and economic imperialism; Vol. 2: The global hegemony of capital and its limits]. Moskva: LE-NAND. Bykova, M., Forster M., Steiner, L. (ed.) (2021). The Palgrave Handbook of Russian Thought. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Černavin, G. (2021). Filosofija troll’a. Fenomen platnych botov [from Rus.: The Philosophy of Trolls. The Phenomenon of Bought Trolls]. Moskva: Ripol-klassik.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 253 Černiak, L. (2014). Večnost’ i vremja: vozvraščenie zabytoj temy [from Rus.: Eternity and Time: Return of a Forgotten Theme]. Moskva, SanktPeterburg: Nestor-Istorija. Černiakov, A. (2001). Ontologija vremeni. Vremja i bytie v filosofii Aristotelja, Gusserlja i Khajdeggera [from Rus.: Ontology of Time. Time and Being in the Philosophy of Aristotle, Husserl, and Heidegger]. SanktPeterburg: VRFŠ. Černiakov, A. (2016). Ob utrate očevidnosti: na puti k novoj ontologii [from Rus.: On the Loss of Evidence: Towards a New Ontology.]. SanktPeterburg: VRFŠ. Cheauré, E., Heyder, C. (eds.). (2002). Russische Kultur und Gender Studies [from German: Russian Culture and Gender Studies]. Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2002. Chebankova, E. (2020). Poltical Ideologies in Contemporary Russia. Montreal: McGill Queen University Press. Čubarov, I. (2014). Kollektivnaja čuvstvennost’. Teorii i praktiki levogo avangarda [from Rus.: Collective Sensuality. Theories and Practices of the Left Avant-Garde]. Moskva: HSE. Čubarov, I. (Hg.) (1998). Antologija fenomenologičeskoj filosofii v Rossii [from Rus.: Anthology of the Phenomenological Philosophy in Russia]. Moskva: Russkoe fenomenologičeskoe obščestvo. Čuchrov, K. (2011). Byt’ i ispolnjat’. Proekt teatra v filosofskoj kritike iskusstva [from Rus.: Being and Performing. The Project of Theater in Philosophical Art Criticism]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Cvetkov, A. (2011). Pop-marksizm [from Rus.: The Pop-Marxism]. Moskva: Svobodnoe marksistskoe izdatelstvo. Cvetkov, A. (2016). Marksizm kak stil’ [from Rus.: Marxism as a Style]. Moskva: AST. Cvetkov, A. (2019a). Sinemarksizm [from Rus.: The Chines Marxism]. Moskva: Ripol/Pangloss. Cvetkov, A. (2019b). Velikaja kniga o glavnoj probleme (predislovie k „Kapitalu”) [from Rus.: A Big Book on the Main Problem (an introduction to the Capital)]. Moskva: Svobodnoe marksistskoe izdatelstvo. Cymburskij, V. (2007). Ostrov Rossija. Geopolitičeskie i chronopolitičeskie raboty [from Rus.: The Island of Russia. Geopolitical and Chronopolitical Texts] 1993-2006. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Davydov, J. (1998). Maks Veber i sovremennaja teoretičeskaja sociologija [from Rus.: Max Weber and Contemporary Theoretical Sociology]. Moskva: Martis.

254 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Davydov, S. (ed.). (2020). Internet in Russia: A Study of the Runet and Its Impact on Social Life. Cham: Springer. Deminceva, E. (2008). Byt’ “arabom” vo Francii [from Rus.: Being an “Arab” in France]. Moskva: NLO. Derlugyan, G. (2013). Kak ustroen etot mir. Nabroski na makrosociologičeskie temy [from Rus.: How This World is Made. Sketches on Macrosociological Topics]. Moskva: Gajdar-Institut. Derrida, J. (with N. Avtonomova, M. Ryklin, V. Podoroga). (1995). Moscou aller-retour [from Fr.: To Moscow and Back]. La Tour d’Aigues: Éditions de l’Aube, 1995. Djakov, A. (2005). Problema subjekta v poststrukturalistskoj perspektive: ontologičeskij aspekt [from Rus.: The Problem of the Subject in the Poststructuralist Perspective: the Ontological Aspect]. Kursk: KISO. Djakov, A. (2008). Žan Bodrijar: strategii “radikal’nogo myšlenija” [from Rus.: Jean Beaudrillard: Strategies of “Radical Thinking”]. SanktPeterburg: SPbU. Djakov, A. (2010a). Mišel’ Fuko i ego vremja [from Rus.: Michel Foucault and his time]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Djakov, A. (2010b). Rolan Bart kak on est’ [from Rus.: Roland Barthes as He Is]. Sankt-Peterburg: V. Dal’. Djakov, A. (2010c). Žak Lakan: figura filosofa [from Rus.: Jacques Lacan: the Figure of a Philosopher]. Moskva: Territorija buduščego. Djakov, A. (2012). Feliks Gvattari, filosof transversal’nosti [from Rus.: Félix Guattari, the Philosopher of Transversality]. Moskva: V. Dal’. Djakov, A. (2013). Žil’ Delëz. Filosofija različija [from Rus.: Gilles Deleuze: Philosophy of Difference]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Dmitriev, A. (2004). Marksizm bez proletariata: Georg Lukač i rannjaja Frankfurtskaja škola [from Rus.: Marxism without the Proletariat: George Lukács and the Early Frankfurt School]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Dmitriev, A., Samutina, N., Višlenkova, E. (eds.). (2017). Sad učënych naslaždenij [from Rus.: The Garden of Learned Pleasures]. Moskva: HSE. Dmitriev, A., Saveljeva, I. (eds.). (2015). Nauki o čeloveke: istorija disciplin [from Rus.: Humanities: History of the Disciplines]. Moskva: HSE. Dmitriev, I. (1999). Neizvestnyj Njuton: siluet na fone epochi [from Rus.: The Unknown Newton: a Figure Against the Background of His Age]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Dmitriev, I. (2006a). Iskušenie sviatogo Kopernika: nenaučnye korni naučnoj revolucii [from Rus.: The Temptation of Saint Copernicus: The Unscientific Roots of a Scientific Revolution]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbU.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 255 Dmitriev, I. (2006b). Uveščanije Galileja [from Rus.: The Admonition of Galileo]. Moskva: Nestor-Istorija. Dmitriev, I. (2015). Upr’amyj Galilej [from Rus.: The Indomitable Galileo]. Moskva: NLO. Dobrochotov, A. (2016). Filosofija kul’tury [from Rus.: Philosophy of Culture]. Moskva: HSE. Dokučaev, I. (2009). Cennost’ i ekzistencija: osnovopoloženija istoričeskoj aksiologii kul’tury [from Rus.: Values and Existence: Foundations of Historical Cultural Axiology]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Dokučaev, I. (2010). Fenomenologija znaka: izbrannye raboty po semiotike i dialogike kul’tury [from Rus.: The Phenomenology of the Sign: Selected Works on the Semiotics and Dialogics of Culture]. SanktPeterburg: Nauka. Donskikh, O. (1997). Jazyk v okeane jazykov [from Rus.: The Language in the Ocean of Languages]. Novosibirsk: Sibirskij chronograf. Dratschewskij, L. (ed.). (2016). Europa von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok: Alternativloser Weg zur Stabilität Europas [from German: Europe from Lisbon to Vladivostok: No Alternative Path to European Stability]. Berlin: Deutsch-Russisches Forum e.V. Dubin, B. (2004). Intellektual’nye gruppy i simvoličeskie formy [from Rus.: Intellectual Groups and Symbolic Forms]. Moskva: Novoe izdatel’stvo. Dubin, B. (2015). Das Unmögliche leben. Studien, Essays, Erinnerungen [from German: Living the Impossible. Studies, Essays, Memoirs]. Berlin: Osteuropa 1. Dubin, B., Gudkov, L. (1994). Literatura kak social’nyj institut [from Rus.: Literature as a Social Institute]. Moskva: NLO. Dubrovskij, D. (2019). Problema soznanija: teorija i kritika al’ternativnych koncepcij [from Rus.: The Problem of Consciousness: Theory and Critique of Alternative Conceptions]. Moskva: URSS. Dudenkova, I. (ed.). (2021). (V)mesto subjekta [from Rus.: (In)Place of the Subject]. Logos, 31:3. Dudnik, S. (2013). Marks protiv SSSR. Kritičeskie interpretacii sovetskogo istoričeskogo opyta v neomarksizme [from Rus.: Marx vs. the USSR. Critical Interpretations of the Soviet Historical Experience in NeoMarxism]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Džokhadze, I. (2001). Neopragmatizm Ričarda Rorti [from Rus.: The Neopragmatism of Richard Rorty]. Moskva: URSS. Džokhadze, I. (2006). Demokratija posle moderna [from Rus.: Democracy After Modernity]. Moskva: Praksis.

256 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Džokhadze, I. (2011). Po tu storonu etiki [from Rus.: Beyond Ethics]. SanktPeterburg: Aletheia. Džokhadze, I. (2013). Pragmatičeskij realizm Chilari Patnema [from Rus.: The Pragmatic Realism of Hilary Putnam]. Moskva: Kanon+. Džokhadze, I. (2021). Brendom o Gegele: opyt analitičeskogo pročtenija “Fenomenologii dukha” [from Rus.: Robert Brandom on Hegel: An Attempt at an Analytical Reading of the “Phenomenology of Spirit”]. Moskva: Kanon+. Eichler, K.-D., Schneider, U. J. (eds.). (1996). Russische Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert [from German: Russian Philosophy in the 20th Century]. Leipzig: Leipziger Univ.-Verl. Epple, N. (2020). Neudobnoe prošloe. Pam’at’ o gosudarstvennych prestuplenijach v Rossii i drugich stranach [from Rus.: The Inconvenient Past. Commemoration of State Crimes in Russia and Elsewhere]. Moskva: NLO. Epstein, M. (2004). Znak probela: o buduščem gumanitarnych nauk [from Rus.: Blank: From the Future of the Humanities]. Moskva: NLO. Epstein, M. (2012). The Transformative Humanities: A Manifesto. N.Y.: Bloomsbury Academic. Epstein, M. (2019). The Phoenix of Philosophy: Russian Thought of the Late Soviet Period (1953–1991). N.Y: Bloomsbury Academic. Etkind, A. (1996). Eros des Unmöglichen: die Geschichte der Psychoanalyse in Russland [from German: Eros of the Impossible: the History of Psychoanalysis in Russia]. Leipzig: Kiepenheuer & Witsch (russ. Ausgabe: 1993). Etkind, A. (2020). Priroda zla. Syrjë i gosudarstvo [from Rus.: The Nature of Evil. Raw Materials and the State]. Moskva: NLO. Fajbyšenko, V., Rumiancev, O., Šemanov, A. (2017). Čelovek i ego inoe. K istorii subjektivnosti [from Rus.: Man and his Otherness. On the History of Subjectivity]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Fedčuk, D. (2019). Golos “Edinogo”: Albert Velikij, Foma Akvinskij i Duns Skot [from Rus.: The Voice of the “One”: Albertus Magnus, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus]. Sankt-Peterburg: RKhGA. Fedotova, V. (2005). Chorošee obščestvo [from Rus.: The Good Company]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija. Feščenko, V., Koval’, O. (2014). Sotvorenie znaka. Očerki o lingvoestetike i semiotike iskusstva [from Rus.: The Creation of the Sign. Studies in Linguoesthetics and Art Semiotics]. Moskva: Jazyk slavianskich kul’tur.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 257 Filatov, V., Höffe, O., Malakhov, V. (eds.). (2009). Sovremennaja zapadnaja filosofija: enciklopedičeskij slovar’ [from Rus.: Contemporary Western Philosophy: An Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moskva: Kulturnaja revolucija. Filippov, A. (2008). Sociologija prostranstva [from Rus.: Sociology of space]. Sankt-Peterburg: V. Dal’. Fokine, S. (2013). La philosophie russe à l’épreuve de la tâche du traducteur [from Fr.: Russian philosophy and the translator’s task]. Noesis, 21: 359–369. Furs, V. (2002). Kontury sovremennoj kritičeskoj teorii [from Rus.: Outlines of Contemporary Critical Theory]. Minsk: EHU. Furs, V. (2006). Social’naja filosofija v nepopul’arnom izloženii [from Rus.: Social Philosophy in Unpopular Presentation]. Vilnius: EHU. Gačev, G. (2000). Veščajut vešči. Mysljat obrazy [from Rus.: Things Announce. Images Think]. Moskva: Akademisčeskij proekt. Gajdenko, P. (1997). Proryv k transcendentnomu. Novaja ontologija XX v. [from Rus.: Breakthrough to the Transcendent. The New Ontology of the 20th Century]. Moskva: Respublika. Gajdenko, P. (2000a). Istorija grečeskoj filosofii v eë sv’azi s naukoj [from Rus.: History of Greek Philosophy in its Relation to Science]. Moskva: Universitetskaja kniga. Gajdenko, P. (2000b). Istorija novojevropejskoj filosofii v eë sv’azi s naukoj [from Rus.: History of Modern Philosophy in its Relation to Science]. Moskva: Universitetskaja kniga. Gajdenko, P. (2006). Vrem’a. Dlitel’nost’. Večnost’ [from Rus.: Time. Duration. Eternity]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija. Galkovskij, D. (1997). Beskonečnyj tupik [from Rus.: The Infinite Impasse]. Moskva: (Eigenverlag). Gapova, E. (2016). Klassy nacij: feministskaja kritika naciostroitel’stva [from Rus.: Classes of Nations: a Feminist Critique of Nation-Building]. Moskva: NLO. Garadža, N. (Hg.) (2006). Suverenitet [from Rus.: Sovereignty]. Moskva: Evropa. Gasparjan, D. (2011). Vvedenie v neklassičeskuju filosofiju [from Rus.: Introduction to Non-Classical Philosophy]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Gefter, M. (1991). Iz tech i etich let [from Rus.: From These and Those Years]. Moskva: Progress. Genisaretskij, O. (2002). Navigator: metodologičeskie rasširenija i prodolženija [from Rus.: The Navigator: Methodological Extensions and Continuations]. Moskva: Put’.

258 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Gethmann, C. F., Plotnikov, N. (1998). Philosophie in Rußland. Tendenz und Perspektiven [from German: Philosophy in Russia. Tendency and Prospects]. Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler: Europäische Akademie. Girenok, F. (1998). Pato-logija russkogo uma (kartografija doslovnosti) [from Rus.: Patho-logy of the Russian Mind (Cartography of the Literal)]. Moskva: Agraf. Girenok, F. (2008). Udovol’stvie myslit’ inače [from Rus.: The pleasure of Thinking Differently]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Glazyčev, V. (2011). Gorod bez granic [from Rus.: City without Borders]. Moskva: Territorija buduščego. Glukhov, A. (2014). Perechlëst volny. Političeskaja logika Platona i postnicšeanskoe preodolenie platonizma [from Rus.: The Exuberance of the Wave. Plato’s Political Logic and the Post-Nietzschean Overcoming of Platonism]. Moskva: HSE. Gluščenko, I., Kurennoj, V. (Hg.) (2013). Vremja, vperëd! Kul’turnaja politika v SSSR [from Rus.: Time, forward! Cultural Policy in the USSR]. Moskva: HSE. Gončarko, O. (Hg.) 2021: Vizantijskij faktor v formirovanii russkoj logičeskoj tradicii [from Rus.: The Byzantine Factor in the Formation of Russian Logical Tradition]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Goriainov, O. (2018). Pravo imejuščij. K kritike političeskoj teologii [from Rus.: Having Right. On the Critique of Political Theology]. SanktPeterburg: TransLit. Goričeva, T. (1992). Dočeri Iova. Christianstvo i feminizm [from Rus.: Daughters of Job. Christianity and Feminism]. Sankt-Peterburg: Alga-Fond. Griaznov, A. (1991). Jazyk i dejatel’nost’. Kritičeskij analiz vitgenštejnianstva [from Rus.: Language and Activity. Critical Analysis of Wittgenstein’s Doctrine]. Moskva: MGU. Gricanov, A., Možejko, M. (eds.). (2001). Postmodernizm. Enciklopedija [from Rus.: Postmodernism. An Encyclopedia]. Minsk: InterPressServis. Grigorishin, S. (2022). Georgy Ščedrovicky’s philosophical quest and the Methodological school [from Rus.: Filosofskij poisk Georgiya Ščedrovickogo i metodologičeskaja škola]. Ideology and Polics Journal 1(20): 44–143. Grigorjeva, Nadežda (2012). Čelovečnoe, besčelovečnoe. Radikal’naja antropologija v filosofii, literature i kino konca 1920-ch - 1950-ch gg. [from Rus.: The Human, the Dehumanized. Radical Anthropology in Philosophy, Literature and Art of the Late 1920s–1950s]. SanktPeterburg: Petropolis.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 259 Groys, B. (1992). Über das Neue. Versuch einer Kulturökonomie [from German: On the New. Attempt at a Cultural Economy]. München: Hanser. Groys, B. (2000). Unter Verdacht. Eine Phänomenologie der Medien [from German: Under Suspicion. A Phenomenology of the Media]. München: Hanser. Groys, B. (2005). Das kommunistische Postskriptum [from German: The Communist Postscript]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Groys, B. (2008). Die Kunst des Denkens [from German: The Art of Thinking]. Hamburg: Philo Fine Arts. Groys, B. (2009). Einführung in die Anti-Philosophie [from German: Introduction to Anti-Philosophy]. München: Hanser. Groys, B., Hösle, V. (2011). Die Vernunft an die Macht: Ein Streitgespräch [from German: Reason to Power: A Controversy]. Wien: Turia+Kant. Grušin, B. (2001-2006). Četyre žizni v Rossii v zerkale oprosov obščestvennogo mnenija rossijan vremën Chruščeva, Brežneva, Gorbačëva i Jelcina v 4 knigach [from Rus.: Four Lives in Russia as Reflected in the Opinion Polls of Russians in the Times of Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Gorbachev and Yeltsin]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija. Gubman, B. (2009). Diskussija o moderne i postmoderne v sovremennoj rossijskoj filosofii [from Rus.: Discussion of Modernity and Postmodernity in Contemporary Russian Philosophy]. Soboleva, M. (ed.). Rossijskaja postsovetskaja filosofija. Moskva: TFF, 177–211. Gussejnov, G. (2012). Nulevye na končike jazyka. Kratkie putevoditel’ po russkomu diskursu [from Rus.: The 2000s are on the Tip of Your Tongue. Short Guide to the Russian Discourse]. Moskva: Delo. Gutner, G. (2008). Risk i otvetstvennost’ subjekta kommunikativnogo dejstvija [from Rus.: Risk and Responsibility of the Subject of the Communicative Action]. Moskva: IFRAN-SFI. Haardt, A., Plotnikov, N. (eds.) (2011). Das normative Menschenbild in der russischen Philosophie [from German: The Normative Image of Man in Russian Philosophy]. Berlin: Lit. Hösle, V. (2017). Russland 1917–2017. Kultur, Selbstbild und Gefahr [from German: Russia 1917-2017. Culture, Self-Image, and Danger]. Basel: Schwabe. Iljin, I. (1996). Poststrukturalizm, dekonstrukvizm, postmodernizm [from Rus.: Poststructuralism, Deconstructivism, Postmodernism]. Moskva: Intrada. Iljin, I. (1998). Postmodernizm ot istokov do konca stoletija: evolucija naučnogo mifa [from Rus.: Postmodernism from its Beginnings to the End of the Century: Evolution of the Scientific Myth]. Moskva: Intrada.

260 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Ingold, F. Ph. (2019). Russische Philosophie–ein Fremdkontinent des Denkens [from German: Russian Philosophy—a Foreign Continent of Thought]. Recherche Online, n.d., https://bit.ly/3sNM28N (access June 23, 2022). Inišev, I., Ščitcova, T. (eds.). (2010). Praktizacija filosofii: sovremennye tendencii i strategii [from Rus.: Practicalization of Philosophy]. Vilnius: EU. Ionin, L. (1995). Osnovanija sociokul’turnogo analiza [from Rus.: Basics of Sociocultural Analysis]. Moskva: RGGU. Ionin, L. (2010). Apdejt konservatizma [from Rus.: The Update on Conservatism]. Moskva: HSE. Ivanov, D. (2013). Priroda fenomenal’nogo soznanija [from Rus.: The Nature of Phenomenal Consciousness]. Moskva: Librokom. Ivanov, V. (2010). Intensivnaja veličina soveršenstva: Beskonečnost’ kak suščestvennoe pon’atie v teologii i filosofii IoA. Dunsa Skota, OMB [from Rus.: The Intense Greatness of Perfection: Infinity as the Essential Concept in the Theology and Philosophy of Duns Scotus, OFM]. In Serëgin, A. (ed.). Kosmos i duša. Učenija o prirode i myšlenii v Antičnosti, Srednie veka i Novoe vrem’a. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija, 379-431. Ivanov, V. (2018). Duns Skot i skotisty o toždestve i različii: k istorii druch metafizičeskich pon’atij v aristotelevsko-scholastičeskoj filosofii [from Rus.: Duns Scotus and the Scotists on Identity and Difference: On the History of Two Metaphysical Concepts in AristotelianScholastic Philosophy]. ESSE. Filosofskie i teologičeskie issledovanija, 3(2): 255–290. Ivanov, V. (2021). Formirovanie ontologičeskogo poniatija ‘statusa veščej’ v metafizike i teologii iezuitov konca XVI - pervoj poloviny XVII vv. [from Rus.: The Formation of the Ontological Concept of ‘Status of Things’ in the Jesuit Metaphysics and Theology in the end of XVI– beginning of XVII]. ΣΧΟΛΗ, 15(2): 716–744. Ivanov, V. Vs. (2004). Nauka o čeloveke: vvedenie v sovremennuju antropologiju [from Rus.: Science of Man: Introduction to Contemporary Anthropology]. Moskva: RGGU. Ivanova, J. (Hg.) (2012). Polemičeskaja kul’tura i struktura naučnogo teksta v Srednie veka i v rannee Novoe vrem’a [from Rus.: The Culture of Polemics and the Structure of the Learned Text in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Period]. Moskva: HSE. Ivanova, J., Rutkevič, A. (eds.). (2009). Kul’tura interpretacii do načala Novogo vremeni [from Rus.: The Culture of Interpretation before the Beginning of the Modern Era]. Moskva: HSE.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 261 Ivanova, J., Sokolov, P. (2011). Krome Dekarta: razmyšlenija o metode v intellektual’noj kul’ture Evropy i rannego Novogo vremeni [from Rus.: Alongside Descartes: Reflections on Method in the Culture of Thought in the Early Modern Era]. Moskva: Quadriga. Ivanova, J., Sokolov, P. (2014). Krome Makiavelli: problema metoda v političeskich naukach rannego Novogo vremeni [from Rus.: Along with Machiavelli: the Problem of Method in Early Modern Political Science]. Moskva: Quadriga. Jakovlev, A. (2013). Zaveščanie Džona Lokka, priverženca mira, filosofa i angličanina [from Rus.: The Legacy of John Locke, the Friden Protector, the Philosopher and the Englishman]. Moskva: GajdarInstitut. Jakovlev, V. (2019). Christianskaja filosofija čuda Tomasa Gobbsa i Džona Lokka [from Rus.: The Christian Philosophy of the Miracle by Thomas Hobbes and John Lockes]. Tomsk: TGU. Jakovlev, V. (2020). Christianskaja filosofija čuda Džona Tolanda i Devida Juma [from Rus.: The Christian Philosophy of the Miracle by John Tolands and David Humes]. Tomsk: TGU. Jampol’skaja, A. (2018). Iskusstvo fenomenologii [from Rus.: The Art of Phenomenology]. Moskva: Ripol-klassik. Jampol’skaja, A., Šolokhova, S. (eds.). (2014). (Post)fenomenologija: novaja fenomenologija vo Francii i za ee predelami [from Rus.: (Post)Phenomenology: New Phenomenology in France and Outside the Country]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Judin, G. (2020). Obščestvennoe mnenie, ili Vlast’ cifr [from Rus.: Public Opinion or The Power of Numbers]. Sankt-Peterburg: EUSP. Junusov, A. (2017). Opredelenija v dokazatel’stvach ‘Vtoroj analitiki’: bol’šie ili men’šie terminy [from Rus.: Definitions in the ‘Second Analytics’ Exams: Generic Terms or Subordinate Terms?]. Voprosy filosofii, 8: 166–179. Kagan, M. (1997). Filosofskja teorija cennosti [from Rus.: Philosophical Value Theory]. Sankt-Peterburg: Petropolis. Kaganskij, V. (2001). Kul’turnyj landšaft i sovetskoe obitaemoe prostranstvo [from Rus.: Cultural Landscape and Soviet Ecumenism]. Moskva: NLO. Kagarlickij, B. (2005). Marksizm: ne rekomendovano dlja obučenija [from Rus.: Marxism: not Recommended for Teaching Purposes]. Moskva: Eksmo. Kagarlickij, B. (2007). Politologija revolucii [from Rus.: Political Science of the Revolution]. Moskva: Algoritm.

262 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Kagarlickij, B. (2017). Meždu klassom i diskursom. Levye intellektualy na straže kapitalizma [from Rus.: Between Class and Discourse. Left Intellectuals as Guardians of Capitalism]. Moskva: HSE. Kantor, V. (Hg.) (2009). Jurii Michailovič Lotman. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Kaplun, V. (2016). Social’naja teorija v meždisciplinarnoj perspektive [from Rus.: Social Theory in the Interdisciplinary Perspective]. SanktPeterburg: Aletheia. Kapustin, B. (2019). Rassuždenija o ‘konce revolucii’ [from Rus.: Reflections on the ‘End of the Revolution’]. Moskva: Institut-Gajdar. Kebuladze, V. (ed.). (2015). Politiki znanija i naučnye soobščestva [from Rus.: Science Policies and Knowledge Communities]. Vilnius: EHU. Khamitov, N. (2002). Filosofija čeloveka: ot metafiziki k metaantropologii [from Rus.: Philosophy of Man: From Metaphysics to Meta-Anthropology]. Kiew: Nika. Kharitonova, O. (2014). Manifest Feministskogo dviženija Rossii [from Rus.: Manifesto of the Feminist Movement of Russia]. Moskva: n.a. Kharitonova, O. (2016). Ženščiny. Razgovor ne o mužčinach [from Rus.: Women. A Conversation not about Men]. Moskva: AST. Kharkhordin, O. (2018). Republicanism in Russia: Community Before and After Communism. Boston: Harvard University Press. Kharkhordin, O. (2020). Respublika, ili Delo publiki [from Rus.: Republic or Commonwealth]. Sankt-Peterburg: EUSP. Kharkhordin, O., Volkov, V. (2008). Teorija praktik [from Rus.: Practices’ Theory]. Sankt-Peterburg: EUSP. Khaustov, D. (2018). Lekcii po filosofii postmoderna [from Rus.: Lectures on the Philosophy of Postmodernism]. Moskva: Ripol-Klassik. Khor’kov, M. (2003). Majster Ekchart: vvedenie v filosofiju velikogo rejnskogo mistika [from Rus.: Meister Eckhart: Introduction to the Philosophy of the Great Mystic]. Moskva: Nauka. Khor’kov, M. (2007). Tomizm, al’bertizm i avgustinizm v intellektual’noj i duchovnoj kul’ture Rejnskogo regiona v XIV-XV vv. [from Rus.: Thomism, Albertism and Augustinism in the Intellectual and Spiritual Culture of the Rhenian Region in 14th-15th Centuries]. Moskva: RUDN. Khor’kov, M. (2015). Filosofija Nikolaja Kuzanskogo [from Rus.: The Philosophy of Nicholas of Cusa]. Moskva: IFRAN. Kokošin, A. (2006). Real’nyj suverenitet v sovremennoj miropolitičeskoj sisteme [from Rus.: Real Sovereignty in the Current World Political System]. Moskva: Evropa.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 263 Konačëva, S. (2019). Bog posle Boga: puti postmetafizičeskogo myšlenija [from Rus.: The God after God: Ways of Postmetaphysical Thinking]. Moskva: RGGU. Kordonskij, S. (2006). Rynki vlasti (administrativnye rynki SSSR i Rossii) [from Rus.: Markets of Power (Administrative Markets of the USSR and Russia]. Moskva: OGI. Kordonskij, S. (2007). Resursnoe gosudarstvo [from Rus.: The Resource State]. Moskva: Regnum. Kordonskij, S. (2008). Soslovnaja struktura postsovetskoj Rossii [from Rus.: The Estates Structure of Post-Soviet Russia]. Moskva: FOM. Kordonskij, S. (2011). Veernye matricy kak instrument postroenija ontologij [from Rus.: Fractal Matrixes as a Means of Ontology Construction]. Washington: South-West. Kordonskij, S. (2016). Socio-Economic Foundations of the Russian Post-Soviet Regime. The Resource-Based Economy and Estate-Based Social Structure of Contemporary Russia. Stuttgart: ibidem-Verlag. Kormina, Ž. A. (2019). Palomniki: etnografičeskie očerki pravoslavnogo nomadizma [from Rus.: Pilgrims: Ethographic Sketches of Orthodox Nomadism]. Moskva: HSE. Kosilova, E. (2014). Psichiatrija. Opyt filosofskogo analiza [from Rus.: Psychiatry. An Attempt at Philosophical Analysis]. Moskva: Prospekt. Kosilova, E. (2016). O sud’bach subjektov. Otnošenie ‘Subjekt - Drugie’. Formirovanie. Autizm. Adekvatnost’ [from Rus.: Of the Layers of the Subjects. Relation ‘Subject - the Others’. Formation. Autism. Adequacy]. Moskva: Leland. Kosilova, E. (2021). Paradigmy subjektnosti [from Rus.: Paradigms of Subjectivity]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Kozlov, S. (2020). Implantacija. Očerki genealogii istoriko-filologičeskogo znanija vo Francii [from Rus.: Implantation. Studies on the Genealogy of Historical-Philological Knowledge in France]. Moskva: NLO. Kozlova, M. (ed.) (1996). Filosofskie idei L’udviga Vitgenštejna [from Rus.: The Philosophical Ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein]. Moskva: IFRAN. Kozlova, N. (1996). Gorizonty povsednevnosti sovetskoj epochi: golosa iz chora [from Rus.: Horizons of Soviet Everyday Life: Voices from the Choir]. Moskva: IFRAN. Kralečkin, D. (2020). Nenadëžnoe bytie. Chajdegger i modernizm [from Rus.: The Unreliable Being. Heidegger and Modernism]. Moskva: Institut Gajdara. Kralečkin, D., Ušakov, A. (2001). EuroOntology. Moskva: Prometej.

264 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Kralečkin, D., Ušakov, A. (2010). Konec cenzury [from Rus.: The End of Censorship]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Krasikov, V. (2008). Russkaja filosofija today [from Rus.: Russian Philosophy Today]. Moskva: Vodolej. Krotov, A. (2012). Mal’branš i kartezianstvo [from Rus.: Malebranche and Cartesianism]. Moskva: MGU. Krotov, A. (2018). Filosofija istorii filosofii vo Francii [from Rus.: The Philosophy of the History of Philosophy in France]. Moskva: MGU. Kukulin, I. (2015). Mašiny zašumevšego vremeni: kak sovetskij montaž stal metodom neoficial’noj kul’tury [from Rus.: Machines of the Rushing Time: How Soviet Montage Became the Method of Unofficial Culture]. Moskva, NLO. Kurennoj, V. (2009). Filosofija filma: upražnenie v analize [from Rus.: A Philosophy of Film: Exercise in Analysis]. Moskva: NLO. Kurennoj, V. (ed.). (2006–2009). Mysl’aščaja Rossija. T. 1: Kartografija sovremennych intellektual’nych napravlenij; T. 2: Intellektual’no-aktivnaja gruppa: mirovozzrenie, specifika social’nych funkcij i ideologičeskie differenciacii v kontekste postsovetskoj transformacii; T. 3: Istorija i teorija intelligencii i intellektualov [from Rus.: Thinking Russia. Vol. 1: Cartography of Contemporary Intellectual Currents. Vol. 2: Intellectual-active Group: Worldview, Peculiarity of Social Functions and Ideological Differentiations in the Context of Post-Soviet Transformations. Vol. 3: History and Theory of the Intelligentsia and Intellectuals]. Moskva: Fond Nasledie Evrazii. Kurennoj, V. (ed.). (2006). Antologija realističeskoj fenomenologii [from Rus.: Anthology of Realistic Phenomenology]. Moskva: St. Thomas Institute of Philosophy, Theology and History. Kuricyn, V. (2000). Russkij literaturnyj postmodernizm [from Rus.: Russian Literary Postmodernism]. Moskva: OGI. Kurtov, M. (2014). Genezis grafičeskogo pol’zovatel’skogo interfejsa. K teologii koda [from Rus.: The Emergence of the Graphical WEB Interface. On the Theology of Code]. Sankt-Peterburg: TransLit. Kuße, H., Plotnikov, N. (eds.). (2011). Pravda. Diskurse der Gerechtigkeit in der russischen Ideengeschichte [from German: Pravda. Discourses of Justice in the History of Russian Ideas]. München/Berlin: Otto Sagner. Kuznecov, Vit. (2006). Evropejskaja filosofija XVIII veka [from Rus.: European Philosophy in the 18th Century]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Kuznecov, Vas. (2010). Mir edinstva [from Rus.: The World of Unity]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 265 Kuznecov, Vas. (2016). Edinstvo mira v postneklassičeskoj perspektive [from Rus.: The Unity of the World in the Post-Nonclassical Perspective]. Moskva: IOI. Lachmann, R. (1990). Gedächtnis und Literatur. Intertextualität in der russischen Moderne [from German: Memory and Literature. Intertextuality in Russian Modernism]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Laruelle, M. (2018). Russian Nationalism. Imaginaries, Doctrines and Political Battlefields. London: Routledge. Lebed’, E. (2006). Vvedenije v fenomenologiju prirody [from Rus.: Introduction to the Phenomenology of Nature]. Kiew: PARAPAN. Lebedev, A. (2014). Logos Geraklita. Rekonstrukcija mysli i slova [from Rus.: The Logos of Heraclitus. A Reconstruction of the Thought and the Word]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Lejbin, V. (2017). Psichoanalitičeskie idei i filosofskie razmyšlenija [from Rus.: Psychoanalytical Ideas and Philosophical Reflections]. Moskva: Cogito-Centr. Lekhcier, V. (2018). Bolezn’: opyt, narrativ, nadežda. Očerk social’nych i gumanitarnych issledovanij mediciny [from Rus.: Illness: Experience, Narration, Hope. Attempt on social and human science studies of medicine]. Vilnius: Logvino literatūros namai, 2018. Lekhcier, V. (2020). Poezija i eë inoe: filosofskie i literaturno-kritičeskie teksty [from Rus.: Poetry and its Other: Philosophical and Literary Critical Texts]. Ekaterinburg-Moskva: Kabinetnyj učënyj. Lektorsky, V. (ed.). (2014). Problemy i diskussii v filosofii Rossii vtoroj poloviny XX veka: sovremennyj vzgljad [from Rus.: Problems and Discussions in the Philosophy of Russia of the 2nd Half of the 20th Century]. Moskva: Političeskaja enciklopedija. Levada, J., Šanin, T. (eds.). (2005). Pokolenčeskij analiz sovremennoj Rossii [from Rus.: The Generational Analysis of Contemporary Russia]. Moskva: NLO. Levčenko, J. (2012). Drugaja nauka: russkie formalisty v poiskach biografii [from Rus.: Another Science: Russian Formalists in Search of a Biography]. Moskva: HSE. Levina, T. (ed.). (2013). Transcendentnoe v sovremennoj filosofii: napravlenija i metody [from Rus.: The Transcendent in Contemporary Philosophy: Currents and Methods]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Levit, S. (2007). Kul’turologija. Enciklopedija [from Rus.: Cultorology. Encyclopedia]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Lin’kov, E. (2012, 2019). Lekcii raznych let po filosofii. Tom I, II [from Rus.: Lectures in Philosophy from Different Years]. SPb: Grant Press, Umozrenie.

266 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Lošakov, R. (2007). Različie i toždestvo v grečeskoj i srednevekovoj ontologii [from Rus.: Difference and Identity in Greek and Medieval Ontology]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbU, RChGA. Lurje, V. (2006). Istorija vizantijskoj filosofii. Formativnyj period [from Rus.: History of Byzantine Philosophy. The Formation Period]. SanktPeterburg: Axioma. Magun, A. (2008). Otricatel’naja revolucija. K dekonstrucii političeskogo subjekta [from Rus.: Negative Revolution. On the Deconstruction of the Political Subject]. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatel’stvo Evropejskogo universiteta. Majdanskij, A. (2005). Russische Spinozisten des 20. Jahrhunderts [from German: Russian Spinozists of the 20th Century]. In Röhr, W. (Hg.) Spinoza im Osten. Systematische und rezeptionsgeschichtliche Studien. Berlin: Organon. Majdanskij, A. (2012). The logic of Marx’s theory of history: Reforming formations. Russian Studies in Philosophy 51(2): 7–22. Makarenko, V. (2002). Analitičeskaja političeskaja filosofija: očerki političestkoj konceptologii [from Rus.: Analytic Political Philosophy: Sketches of Political Conceptology]. Moskva: Praxis. Makhlin, V. (ed.). (2010). Mikhail Mikhajlovič Bachtin. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Malakhov, V. (2001). Skromnoe obajanie rasizma [from Rus.: The Discreet Charm of Racism]. Moskva: DIK. Malakhov, V. (2014). Kul’turnye različija i političeskie granicy v epochu global’nych migracij [from Rus.: Cultural Differences and Political Borders in the Age of Global Migrations]. Moskva: NLO, IFRAN. Man’kovskaja, N. (2000). Estetika postmodernizma [from Rus.: Aesthetics of Postmodernism]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Mareev, S. (2008). Iz istorii sovetskoj filosofii: Lukač–Vygotskij–Iljenkov [from Rus.: From the History of Soviet Philosophy: Lukács - Vygotsky Ilyenkov]. Moskva: Kulturnaja revolucija. Mareev, S., Mareeva, E. (2013). Problema myšlenija: sozercatelnyj i dejatelnostnyj podchod [from Rus.: Two Approaches to the Problem of Thinking: Speculation vs. Activity]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Marej, A. (2017). Avtoritet, ili Podčinenie bez nasilija [from Rus.: Authority or Subordination without Force]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Maslin, M., Lesourd, F. (2010). Dictionnaire de la Philosophie russe [from Fr.: Dictionary of Russian Philosophy]. Lausanne: L’Âge d’Homme.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 267 Maslov, D. (2017). Pervenstvo principov neprotivorečija i iskl’učënnogo tretjego v ‘Voprosach’ XIII - pervoj poloviny XIV vv. k ‘Metafizike’ Aristotel’a [from Rus.: The Precedence of the Theorem of the Excluded Contradiction and that of the Excluded Third in ‘Quaestiones’ of the 13th and the 1st half of the 14th century to Aristotle’s Metaphysics]. Voprosy filosofii 7: 207–222. Maslov, D. (2019). Francis of Meyronnes on the Ontological Status of the ‘First Complex Principle’. Medioevo. Rivista di storia della filosofia medievale XLIV: 57–79. Mazin, V. (2010). Subjekt Frejda i Derrida [from Rus.: The Subject in Freud and Derrida]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Mazin, V. (2018). Mašina vlijanija [from Rus.: The Influence Machine]. Moskva: Gajdar-Institut. Mazin, V., Pogrebnjak, A. (2016). Neznajka i kosmos kapitalizma [from Rus.: Neznajka and the Cosmos of Capitalism]. Moskva: Gajdar-Institut. Menžulin, V. (2004). Drugoj Sikorskij. Neudobnye stranicy istorii psichiatrii [from Rus.: The Other Sikorsky. Uncomfortable Pages of the History of Psychiatry]. Kiew: Sfera. Mesyats, S., Egorochkin, M. (2014). After the Eclipse: History of Philosophy in Russia. Studies East European Thought 66: 3–4. Mežuev, V. (2006). Ideja kul’tury [from Rus.: The Idea of Culture]. Moskva: Progress. Mežuev, V. (2012). Ot filosofii perioda ‚ottepeli’ k filosofii perioda ‘zastoja’ [from Rus.: From the Philosophy of the ‘Thaw’ to that of ‘Stagnation’]. Politicheskaja konceptologija 1: 72–91. Minakov, M. (2019). Istorija opyta [from Rus.: History of Experience]. Kiev: Laurus. Minakov, M. (2020). Dialektika sovremennosti v Vostočnoj Evrope. Opyt social’no-filosofskogo osmyslenija [from Rus.: Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe. An Attempt of a Social-Philosophical Reflection]. Kiev: Laurus. Mironov, V., Tagliagambe, S. (2004). Il destino del marxismo in Russia: dall’idolatria al rifiuto [from It.: The fate of Marxism in Russia: from Idolatry to Rejection]. Rome: Luiss University Press. Mokhov, S. (2018). Roždenie i smert’ pochoronnoj industrii: ot srednevekovych pogostov do cifrovogo bessmertija [from Rus.: The Birth and Death of the Funeral Industry: from Medieval Churchyards to Digital Immortality]. Moskva: Common place.

268 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Molčanov, V. (2004). Različenie i opyt. Fenomenologija neagressivnogo soznanija [from Rus.: Differentiation and Experience. A Phenomenology of Non-Agressive Consciousness]. Moskva: Tri kvadrata. Motrošilova, N. (ed.) (2014). Istorija filosofii: vyzovy XXI veka [from Rus.: History of Philosophy: Challenges of the 21st Century]. Moskva: Kanon+. Motrošilova, N. (ed.). (1995–1999). Istorija filosofii: Zapad-Rossija-Vostok [from Rus.: History of Philosophy. West-Russia-East]. Moskva: Greko-latinskij kabinet. Münch, Ch. (2017). In Christo närrisches Russland. Zur Deutung und Bedeutung des ‹jurodstvo› im kulturellen und sozialen Kontext des Zarenreiches [from German: In Christ Foolish Russia. On the Interpretation and Meaning of the ‘jurodstvo’ in the Cultural and Social Context of the Tsarist Empire]. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht. Nalimov, V., Mul’čenko, Z. (1969). Izučenie razvitija nauki kak informacionnogo processa [from Rus.: Analysis of Scientific Development as an Information Process]. Moskva: Nauka, 1969. Naumenko, L. (2012). “Naše” i “moë”: dialektika gumanističeskogo materializma [from Rus.: The “Ours” and the “Mine”: Dialectics of Humanistic Materialism]. Moskva: URSS Librokom. Nemcev, M. (2018). Jasnost’ i radost’ [from Rus.: Clarity and Joy]. Moskva: Sovpadenie. Neretina, S., Ogurcov, A. (2000). Vrem’a kul’tury [from Rus.: The Culture Time]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Nikonenko, S. (ed.) (2019). L. Wittgenstein: pro et contra. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Nilogov, A. (ed.) (2007, 2011). Kto segodnja delaet filosofiju v Rossii [from Rus.: Who Makes Philosophy in Russia Today] (in 2 Vols). Moskva: Pokolenie; Agraf. Nogovicyn, O. (2016). Ontologija chudožestvennoj formy: real’nost’ teksta i prizračnost’ real’nosti [from Rus.: Ontology of the Art Form: Reality of the Text and Apparent Character of Reality]. Sankt-Peterburg: Gumanitarnaja Akademija. Novikova, L., Sizemskaja, I. (2004). Rossijskie ritmy social’noj istorii [from Rus.: Russian Rythms of Social History]. Moskva: IFRAN. Ol’šanskij, D. (2016). Sceny seksual’noj žizni. Psichoanaliz i semiotika teatra i kino [from Rus.: Scenes of Sexual Life. Psychoanalysis and Semiotics of Theater and Film]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 269 Ol’šanskij, D. (2021). Pre-Tekst. Raboty po semiotike i teorii jazyka [from Rus.: Pre-Text. Studies in Semiotics and Language Theory]. Iževsk: ERGO. Olejnikov, A. (2003). Istoričeskij opyt - novyj predmet teoretičeskich issledovanij [from Rus.: Historical Experience as a New Subject of Theoretical Research]. Moskva: Nauka. Orlov, E. (2011). Filosofskij jazyk Aristotelja [from Rus.: The Philosophical Language of Aristotle]. Novosibirsk et al.: Universitet D. a Požarskogo. Osminkin, R. (2015). Teksty s vnepoložnymi zadačami [from Rus.: Texts with External Tasks]. Moskva: NLO. Oznobkina, E. (2019). Izbrannye raboty: statji, recenzii, vospominanija [from Rus.: Selected Works: Essays, Reviews, Memoirs]. Moskva: Kulturnaja revolucija. Panarin, A. (2000, 2002). Iskušenie globalizmom [from Rus.: The Globalist Temptation]. Moskva: Eksmo. Panarin, A. (2002, 2014). Pravoslavnaja civilizacija [from Rus.: The Orthodox Civilization]. Moskva: Institut russkoj civilizacii. Pantin, I. (2004). Sud’by demokratii v Rossii [from Rus.: The Fates of Democracy in Russia]. IF RAN. Paramonov, B. (1997). Konec stil’a [from Rus.: The End of Style]. SanktPeterburg: Aletheia. Pastukhov, V. (2012). Restavracija vmesto reformacii. Dvadcat’ let, kotorye potrjasli Rossiju [from Rus.: Restoration Instead of Reformation. Twenty Years That Shook the World]. Moskva: OGI. Pavlov, A. (2014). Postydnoe udovol’stvie. Filosofskie i social’no-političeskie interpretacii massovogo kinematografa [from Rus.: Guilty Pleasure. Philosophical and Socio-Political Interpretations of Mass Cinema]. Moskva: HSE. Pavlov, A. (2019). Postpostmodernizm: kak social’naja i kul’turnaja teorii objasnjajut našu žizn’ [from Rus.: Post-Postmodernism: How Social and Cultural Theory explains our Times]. Moskva: Delo RANEPA. Pavlovskij, G. (2014). Sistema RF v vojne 2014 goda. De Principatu Debili [from Rus.: The System ‘Russian Federation’ in the War of 2014. De Principatu Debili]. Moskva: Evropa. Pavlovskij, G. (2019). Ironičeskaja imperija. Risk, šans i dogmy Sistemy RF [from Rus.: Ironic Empire. Risk, Chance and Dogmas of the ‘Russian Federation’ System]. Moskva: Evropa. Penzin, A. (2012). Rex Exsomnis. Sleep and Subjectivity in Capitalist Modernity. Berlin: Hatje Cantz.

270 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Percev, A. (2002). Žiznennye strategii tolerantnosti v Rossii i na Zapade [from Rus.: Life Strategies of Tolerance in Russia and the West]. Ekaterinburg: UrGU. Petrov, V. (2007). Maksim Ispovednik: ontologija i metod v vizantijskoj filosofii VII veka [from Rus.: Maximus Confessor: Ontology and Method in 7th Century Byzantine Philosophy]. Moskva: IFRAN. Petrov, V. (Hg.) (2013). ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΚΑ ZHTHMATA. Issledovanija po istorii platonizma [from Rus.: ΠΛΑΤΩΝΙΚΑ ZHTHMATA. Studies in the History of Platonism]. Moskva: Aquilon. Petrovskaja, E. (2012). Bezymjannye soobščestva [from Rus.: Anonymous Communities]. Moskva: Falanster. Petrovskaja, E. (2015). Antifotografija 2 [from Rus.: Antiphotography 2]. Moskva: Tri kvadrata. Petrovskaja, E. (2019). Vozmuščenie znaka. Kultura protiv transcendencii [from Rus.: The Indignation of the Sign. Culture Against Transcendence]. Moskva: Common place. Piatigorsky, A. (2002). Myšlenie i nabl’udenie [from Rus.: Thinking and Observation]. Riga: Liepnieks & Ritups. Piatigorsky, A. (2005). Izbrannye trudy [from Rus.: Selected Works]. Moskva: Jazyki slav’anskoj kul’tury Pigrov, K. (2007). Šëpot demona. Opyt praktisčeskoj filosofii [from Rus.: The Whisper of the Demon. Attempt of Practical Philosophy]. SanktPeterburg: SPbU. Pleškov, A. (2021). Istoki filosofii vremeni: Platon i predšestvenniki [from Rus.: Origins of the Philosophy of Time: Plato and his Predecessors]. Moskva: HSE. Plotnikov, N. (ed.). (2014). Kunst als Sprache–Sprachen der Kunst. Russische Ästhetik und Kunsttheorie der 1920er Jahre in der europäischen Diskussion [from German: Art as Language - Languages of Art. Russian Aesthetics and Art Theory of the 1920s in the European Discussion]. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. Podoroga, V. (1993). Metafizika landšafta. Kommunikativnye strategii v filosofskoj kulture XIX-XX vekov [from Rus.: The Metaphysics of Landscape. Communicative Strategies in the Philosophical Culture of the 19th and 20th Centuries]. Moskva: Nauka. Podoroga, V. (1995). Fenomenologija tela. Vvedenie v filosofskuju antropologiju [from Rus.: The Phenomenology of the Body. Introduction to Philosophical Anthropology]. Moskva: Ad Marginem.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 271 Podoroga, V. (2006, 2011). Mimesis. Materialy analiticheskoi filosopfii. T. 1: Gogol’, Dostojevskij; T. 2. Ideja truda [from Rus.: Mimesis. Materials on the Analytical Anthropology of Literature. Vol. 1: Gogol, Dostoyevsky; Vol. 2: The Idea of the Work]. Moskva: Kulturnaja revolucija, Logos. Podoroga, V. (2010). Apologija apolitičeskogo [from Rus.: Apology of the Apolitical]. Moskva: HSE. Podoroga, V. (2013). Kairos, kritičeskij moment. Aktualnoe proizvedenie iskusstva na marše [from Rus.: Kairos, the Critical Moment. The Current Work of Art on the Rise]. Moskva: Grundrisse. Podoroga, V. (2014). Antropogrammy. Opyt samokritiki [from Rus.: Anthropograms. An Attempt at Self-Criticism]. Moskva: Logos. Podoroga, V. (2016, 2020). Vtoroj ekran. S. Ejzenštejn i kinematograf nasilija [from Rus.: Second Screen and and the Cinema of Violence], 2 Vols. Moskva: Breus. Podoroga, V. (2016). Vopros o vešči. Opyty analitičeskoj antropologii [from Rus.: The Question of the Thing. Attempts at an Analytical Anthropology]. Moskva: Grundrisse. Podoroga, V. (2017). Vremja posle. Osvencim i GULAG: myslit’ absoljutnoe zlo [from Rus.: The Time After. Auschwitz and GULAG: Thinking the Absolute Evil]. Moskva: Ripol-klassik. Podoroga, V. (2020b). Topologija strasti. Merab Mamardašvili: sovremennost’ filosofii [from Rus.: The Topology of Passion. Merab Mamardašvili: Presence of Philosophy]. Moskva: Kanon+. Podoroga, V. (2020а). Parabola. Franc Kafka i konstrukcija snovidenija [from Rus.: Parable. Franz Kafka and the Dream Construction]. Moskva: Kulturnaja revolucija. Poletaev, A., Saveljeva, I. (2003–2006). Znanie o prošlom: teorija i istorija. T. 1: Konstruirovanie prošlogo. T. 2: Obrazy prošlogo [from Rus.: Knowledge of the Past. Vol. 1: Construction of the Past. Vol. 2: Images of the Past]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Potëmkin, A. (2003). Metafilosofskie diatriby na beregach Kiziterinki [from Rus.: Metaphilosophical Diatribes on the Banks of Kiziterinka]. Rostov n. D.: Rostizdat. Pružinin, B. (ed.). (2010). Rossijskaja filosofija prodolžaetsja: iz XX veka v XXI [from Rus.: Russian Philosophy Continues: From the 20th to the 21st Century]. Moskva: ROSSPEN.

272 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Pugačëva, M., Vakhštajn, V. Sovremennoe intellektual’noe [from Rus.: The Ways of Space: Schools, Currents, kniga.

(eds.). (2009). Puti Rossii. Tom XVI. prostranstvo: školy, napravlenija, pokolenija Russia. The Contemporary Intellectual Generations]. Moskva: Universitetskaja

Puščaev, J. (2009). Politika i družba [from Rus.: Politics and Friendship]. Moskva: MŠPI. Puzyrej, A. (2005). Psichologija - psichotechnika - psichagogika [from Rus.: Psychology - Psychotechnics - Psychagogic]. Moskva: Smysl. Rabinovič, V. (2008). Čelovek v kul’ture: vvedenie v metaforičeskuju antropologiju [from Rus.: Man in Culture: Introduction to Metaphorical Anthropology]. Moskva: Forum. Rakhmaninova, M. (2016). Ženščina kak telo [from Rus.: The Woman as a Body]. Moskva: Svobodnoe marksistskoe izdatel’stvo. Rakhmaninova, M. (2020). Vlast’ i telo [from Rus.: Power and Body]. Moskva: Radikal’naja teorija i praktika. Regev, Y. (2015). Konsidentologija: kratkij traktat o metode [from Rus.: Coincidentology: a Short Treatise on the Method]. Sankt-Peterburg: Translit. Regev, Y. (2016). Nevozmožnoe i sovpadenie: o revolucionnoj situacii v filosofii [from Rus.: Impossibility and Coincidence: On the Revolutionary Situation in Philosophy]. Perm’: Hyle Press. Remizov, M. (2016). Russkie i gosudarstvo: nacional’naja ideja do i posle “krymskoj vesny” [from Rus.: Russians and the State: the National Idea before and after the “Crimean Spring”]. Moskva: Eksmo. Revzin, G. (2019). Kak ustroen gorod: 36 esse po filosofii urbanistiki [from Rus.: How the City Works: 36 Essays on the Philosophy of Urbanism]. Moskva: Strelka. Režabek, E. (2007). V poiskach racional’nosti [from Rus.: In Search of Rationality]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Rodoman, B. (1999). Territorial’nye arealy i seti. Očerki teoretičeskoj geografii [from Rus.: Territorial Zones and Networks. Sketches of Theoretical Geography]. Smolensk: Ökumene. Rondarev, A. (2020). Grandioznaja istorija muzyki v XX veke [from Rus.: The Grandiose History of Music in the 20th Century]. Moskva: Ripolklassik. Rostova, N. (2008). Čelovek obratnoj perspektivy. Opyt filosofskogo osmyslenija fenomena jurodstva Christa radi [from Rus.: The Man of Reversed Perspective. An Attempt at a Philosophical Reflection on the Phenomenon of Foolishness in Christ]. Moskva: MGIU.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 273 Rozov, N. (2011). Koleja i pereval. Makrosociologičeskie osnovanija strategij Rossii v XXI veka [from Rus.: Lane and Ridge. Macrosociological Foundations of Russia’s Strategies in the 20th Century]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Rubcov, A. (ed.). (2016). Idei i čisla. Osnovanija i kriterii ocenki rezul’tativnosti filosofskich i sociogumanitarnych issledovanij [from Rus.: Ideas and Numbers. Fundamentals and Criteria of the Evaluation of Research Results in Philosophy and Social and Human Sciences]. Moskva: Progress-Tradicija. Rubcov, A., Bogoslovskij, S. (2008). Megaproekt. O formate i konturach strategii nacional’nogo razvitija [from Rus.: Megaproject. About the Framework and Contours of the National Development Strategy]. Moskva: Socium. Rudnev, V. (2002). Božestvennyj Ludvig. Wittgenstein: Formy žizni [from Rus.: The Divine Ludwig. Wittgenstein: Forms of Life]. Moskva: Pragmatika kul’tury. Rudnev, V. (2007). Filosofija jazyka i semiotika bezumija [from Rus.: Philosophy of Language and the Semiotics of Madness]. Moskva: Territorija buduščego. Rumiancev, O. (2005). Teoretičeskaja kul’turologija [from Rus.: Theoretical Culturology]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Rutkevič, A. (2000). Čto takoe konservatizm [from Rus.: What is Conservatism]. Sankt-Peterburg: Universitetskaja kniga. Ryklin, M. (2003). Räume des Jubels–Totalitarismus und Differenz [from German: Spaces of Jubilation - Totalitarianism and Difference]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Ryklin, M. (2006a). Dekonstruktion und Destruktion. Gespräche [from German: Deconstruction and Destruction. Conversations]. Zürich/Berlin: Diaphanes. Ryklin, M. (2006b). Mit dem Recht des Stärkeren. Russische Kultur in Zeiten der ‘gelenkten Demokratie’ [from German: With the Right of the Stronger. Russian Culture in Times of ‘Managed Democracy]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Ryklin, M. (2008). Kommunismus als Religion. Die Intellektuellen und die Oktoberrevolution [from German: Communism as Religion. The Intellectuals and the October Revolution]. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp. Ryklin, M. (2019). Leben, ins Feuer geworfen–Die Generation des Großen Oktobers. Eine Recherche [from German: Life, Thrown into the Fire The Great October Generation. A Research]. Berlin: Suhrkamp.

274 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Ryklin, Michail/Uffelmann, Dirk/Stedtke, Klaus (Hg.) (2002). Uskol’zajuščij kontekst: russkaja filosofija v postsovetskich uslovijach [from Rus.: Escaping Context: Russian Philosophy in Post-Soviet Circumstances]. Moskva: Ad Marginem. Safronov, Pëtr (2012). Slučajnyj por’adok [from Rus.: The Random Order]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Salmin, A. ([1992] 1997). Sovremennaja demokratija: očerki stanovlenija [from Rus.: Contemporary Democracy: Studies of Becoming]. Moskva: Forum. Sandomirskaja, I. (2001). Kniga o rodine. Opyt analiza diskursivnych praktik [from Rus.: The Book on the Homeland: An Attempt to Analyze Discursive Practices]. Wien: Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. Sandomirskaja, I. (2013). Blokada v slove. Očerki kritičeskoj teorii i biopolitiki jazyka [from Rus.: The Blokade in the Word. Studies on Critical Theory and the Biopolitics of Language]. Moskva: NLO. Satarov, G. (Hg.) (1997). Rossija v poiskach idei: analiz pressy [from Rus.: Russia in Search of Ideas: Analysis of the press]. Moskva: Izvestija. Savčenkova, Nina (2004). Al’ternativnye stili čuvstvennosti: idiosinkrazija i katastrofa [from Rus.: Alternative Sensuality: Idiosyncrasy and Catastrophe]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbU. Savčenkova, Nina (2014). Elementy poetiki psichoanaliza [from Rus.: Elements of Poetics in Psychoanalysis]. Sankt-Peterburg: ERGO. Savčuk, V. (2012). Topologičeskaja refleksija [from Rus.: Topological Reflection]. Moskva: Kanon+. Saveljeva, Marina (2002). Vvedenie v metateoriju soznanija [from Rus.: Introduction to the Metatheory of Consciousness]. Kiew: PARAPAN. Ščedrina, T. (2008). Archiv epochi: tematičeskoe edinstvo russkoj filosofii [from Rus.: The Archive of the Age: Thematic Unity of Russian Philosophy]. Moskva: ROSSPEN. Scherrer, Jutta (2002). Das zivilisatorische Paradigma im neuen russischen Geschichtsdenken [from German: The Civilizational Paradigm in New Russian Historical Thought]. In Ritter, M., Wattendorf, B. (Hg.). Sprünge, Brüche, Brücken. Debatten zur politischen Kultur in Russland aus der Perspektive der Geschichtswissenschaft, Kultursoziologie und Politikwissenschaft. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Scherrer, Jutta (2003). Kulturologie. Rußland auf der Suche nach einer zivilisatorischen Identität [from German: Culturology. Russia in Search of a Civilizational Identity]. Göttingen: Wallstein. Ščitcova (Shchyttsova), T. (1999). K istokam ekzistencial’noj ontologii: Paskal’, Kirkegor, Bachtin [from Rus.: On the Sources of Existential Ontology: Pacal, Kierkegaard, Bakhtin]. Minsk: Propyläen.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 275 Ščitcova, T. (2014). Antropologija. Etika. Politika [from Rus.: Anthropology. Ethics. Politics]. Vilnius: EHU. Ščitcova, T. (2016). Jenseits der Unbezüglichkeit. Geborensein und Intergenerative Erfahrung [from German: Beyond Unrelatedness. Being Born and Intergenerational Experience]. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann. Sedakova, O. (2011). Apologija razuma [from Rus.: Apology of Reason]. Moskva: Russkij put’. Sekackij, A. (2000). Ontologija lži [from Rus.: Ontology of the Lie]. SanktPeterburg: SPbGU. Sekackij, A. (2005). Prikladnaja metafizika [from Rus.: The Applied Metaphysics]. Sankt-Peterburg: Amfora. Sekackij, A. (2012). Poslednij vitok progressa [from Rus.: The last Spiral of Progress]. Sankt-Peterburg: Limbus. Sekackij, A. (2016). Ščit filosofa [from Rus.: The Shield of the Philosopher]. Sankt-Peterburg: Azbuka. Sekundant, S. (2013). Epistemologija Lejbnica v eë normativno-kritičeskich osnovanijach [from Rus.: The Epistemology of Leibniz in its Normative-Critical Foundations]. Odessa: Pečatnyj dom. Serëgin, A. (2005). Gipoteza množestvennosti mirov v traktate Origena “O načalakh” [from Rus.: The Hypothesis of the Multiplicity of Worlds in Origen’s Treatise “Peri archòn”]. Moskva: IFRAN. Sergeev, K. (1993). Renessansnye osnovanija antropocentrizma [from Rus.: The Roots of Anthropocentrism in the Renaissance]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGU. Sergeev, K., Slinin, Ja. (1991). Priroda i razum: antičnaja paradigma [from Rus.: Nature and Reason: the Ancient Paradigm]. Leningrad: LGU. Sergeev, M. (ed.) (2018). Russkoe zarubežje: antologija sovremennoj filosofskoj mysli [from Rus.: Russia out of the Country: Antology]. Boston, MA: MGraphics, 2018. Sergeev, M., Chumakov, A., & Theis, M. (eds.). (2021). Russian Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century. An Anthology. Leiden, Boston: Brill, Rodopi. Šičalin, J. (2000). Istorija antičnogo platonizma v institucional’nom aspekte [from Rus.: History of Ancient Platonism from the Institutional Perspective]. Moskva: Greko-latinskij kabinet. Šičalin, J. (2018). Platonica I. Moskva: Greko-latinskij kabinet. Sineokaja, J. (ed.) (2021). Repliki: filosofskie besedy [from Rus.: Interjections: Philosophical Conversations]. Moskva: LRC. Sineokaja, J. (ed.) (2022). Filosofskie pokolonija [from Rus.: Philosophical Generations]. M.: LRC.

276 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Slinin, Ja. (2001). Transcendental’nyj subjekt: fenomenologičeskoe issledovanie [from Rus.: The Transcendental Subject: A Phenomenological Study]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Slinin, Ja. (2004). Fenomenologija intersubjektivnosti [from Rus.: Phenomenology of Intersubjectivity]. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka. Smirnov, I. (1997). Sein und Kreativität oder das Ende der Postmoderne [from German: Being and Creativity or the End of Postmodernism]. Ostfildern vor Stuttgart: Tertium. Smirnov, I. (1999). Čelovek čeloveku — filosof [from Rus.: Man is Man’s Philosopher]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Smirnov, I. (2003). Filosofija na každyj den’ [from Rus.: Philosophy for Every Day]. Moskva: Pragmatika kul’tury. Smirnov, I. (2010). Krizis sovremennosti [from Rus.: Crisis of the Present]. Moskva: NLO. Smirnov, S. (2016). Antropologičeskij navigator. K sobytijnoj ontologii čeloveka [from Rus.: The Anthropological Navigator. On the Event Ontology of Man]. Novosibirsk: Offset. Šmonin, D. (2006). V teni Renessansa: vtoraja scholastika v Ispanii [from Rus.: In the Shadow of the Renaissance: Spanish Late Scholasticism]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbGU. Smulianskij, A. (2019). Metafora Otca i želanie analitika [from Rus.: The Father Metaphor and the Desire of the Psychoanalyst]. Moskva: HSE. Smulianskij, A. (2021). Isčezajuščaja teorija. Kniga o ključevych figurach kontinental’noj filosofii. Fuko. Derrida. Lakan. Žižek [from Rus.: Vanishing Theory. A Book on the Leading Figures of Continental Philosophy. Foucault. Derrida. Lacan. Žižek]. Moskva: Ripol-klassik. Soboleva, M. (ed.) (2009). Rossijskaja postsovetskaja filosofija: opyt samoanaliza [from Rus.: Russian post-Soviet Philosophy: An Attempt at SelfAnalysis]. München, Berlin: Otto Sanger. Sofronov, V. (2009). Kommunizm čuvstvennosti. Čitaja Kirkegora, Prusta, Kafku, Marksa [from Rus.: The Communism of Sensuality. Reading Kierkegaard, Proust, Kafka and Marx]. Moskva: Territorija buduščego. Sokolov, M., Titaev, K. (2013). Provincial’naja i tuzemnaja nauka [from Rus.: Provinzielle und autochtone Wissenschaft]. Antropologičeskij forum 19: 239-275. Sokolov, P. (ed.). (2015). Mnogolikaja sofistika: nelegitimnaja argumentacija v intellektual’noj kul’ture Evropy Srednich vekov i rannego Novogo vremeni [from Rus.: The Multifaceted Sophistic: Illicit Argumentation in the Thinking Culture of Europe in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Era]. Moskva: HSE.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 277 Sokolov, V. (2010). Filosofija kak istorija filosofii [from Rus.: Philosophy as History of Philosophy]. Moskva: Akademia. Sokolov, V. (2010). Filosofija kak istorija filosofii. Učebnik dlja vuzov [from Rus.: Philosophy as History of Philosophy. Textbook for universities]. Moskva: Akademičeskij proekt. Sokolov, V. (2016). Filosofskie stradanija i prosvetlenija v sovetskoj i postsovetskoj Rossii. Vospominanija i mysli zapozdalogo sovremennika [from Rus.: Philosophical Torment and Enlightenment in Soviet and Post-Soviet Russia. Memoirs of the Belated Contemporary]. Moskva: Vorobjëv A. V. Sokuler, Z. (1994). Ludwig Wittgenstein i ego mesto v filosifii XX veka [from Rus.: Ludwig Wittgenstein and his Position in 20th Century Philosophy]. Dolgoprudnyj: Allegro. Sokuler, Z. (2001). Znanie i vlast’: nauka v obščestve moderna [from Rus.: Knowledge and Power: Science in Modern Society]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGI. Solopova, M. (2002). A. Afrodizijskij i ego traktat ‘O smešenii i roste’ v kontekste istorii antičnogo aristotelizma [from Rus.: Alexander of Aphrodisias and his Treatise ‘On Mixture and Growth’ in the Historical Context of Ancient Aristotelianism]. Moskva: Nauka. Solovjëv, E. (2005). Kategoričeskij imperativ nravstvennosti i prava [from Rus.: Categorical Imperative of Morality and Law]. Moskva: ProgressTradition. Šparaga, O. (2010). Probuždenie političeskoj žizni. Esse o filosofii publičnosti [from Rus.: The Awakening of Political Life. Essay on the Philosophy of the Public Sphere]. Vilnius: EHU. Šparaga, O. (2018). Soobščestvo-posle-Cholokosta: na puti k obščestvu inkl’uzii [from Rus.: The Post-Holocaust Community: Towards an Inclusive Society]. Minsk: ECLAB. Šparaga, O. (ed.). 2013: Posle sovetskogo marksizma: istorija, filosofija, sociologija i psichoanaliz v nacional’nych kontekstach (Belarus’, Ukraina) [from Rus.: After Soviet Marxism: History, Philosophy, Sociology and Psychoanalysis in National Contexts (Belarus, Ukraine)]. Vilnius: EHU. Stoljarov, А. (1995). Stoja i stoicizm [from Rus.: The Stoa and Stoicism]. Moskva: KAMI. Stoljarov, А. (1999). Svoboda voli kak problema evropejskogo moral’nogo soznanija (očerki istorii: ot Gomera do Ljutera) [from Rus.: Freedom of the Will as a Problem of European Moral Consciousness]. Moskva: GLK.

278 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Šul’man, M. (2009). Oščuščenie znanija. Kognitologisčeskie al’ternativy v evropejskoj kul’turnoj tradicii. V 2 tt. [from Rus.: The Sensation of Knowledge. Cognitological Alternatives in the European Cultural Tradition], in 2 Vols. Rostov/D.: JuRFU. Sulakšin, S. (2012). Nacional’naja ideja Rossii: “Moja strana dožna byt’ i dolžna byt’ vsegda!, ili O tom, čto dolžny delat’ vlast’ i obščestvo, čtoby eto bylo tak. V 6 tt. [from Rus.: The National Idea of Russia: “My Country Must Be, and It Must Always Be! or What Must We Do, So That It Would Be So. In 6 volumes]. Moskva: Naučnyj eskspert. Surkov, V. (2008). Teksty [from Rus.: Texts]. Moskva: Europa. Suverennaja demokratija. (2006). Suverennaja demokratija. Ot idei — k doktrine [from Rus.: Sovereign Democracy. From idea to doctrine]. Moskva: Europa. Svetlikova, I. (2005). Istoki russkogo formalizma. Tradicija psichologizma i formal’naja škola [from Rus.: Sources of Russian Formalism. Tradition of Psychologism and the Formal School]. Moskva: NLO. Svetlov, R., Alymova, E. (eds.). (2019). Sokratičeskie školy kak javlenie antičnoj filosofii i kul’tury [from Rus.: Socratic Schools as a Phenomenon of Ancient Philosophy and Culture]. Sankt-Peterburg: RChGA. Svetlov, R., Protopopova, I. (2020). Platon i platonovedenie [from Rus.: Plato and Plato Studies]. Platonovskie issledovanija [from Rus.: Platonic Research] 13: 2–17. Swassjan, K. (1993). On the Way to Damascus. On the Spiritual Situation between East and West. Stuttgart: Urachhaus. Swassjan, K. (2008). Aufgearbeitete Anthroposophie. Eine Geisterfahrt [from German: Reprocessed Anthroposophy. A Ghost Trip]. Dornach: Goetheanum. Swassjan, K. (2020). Philosophische Postskripta [from German: Philosophical Postscripta]. Aarau: Nadelöhr. Swiderski, E. (1998). Culture, Context, and Directions in Russian PostSoviet Philosophy. Studies in East European Thought 50(4): 283–328. Temkina, A. (2008). Seksual’naja žizn’ ženščiny: meždu podčineniem i svobodoj [from Rus.: The Sexual Life of Women: Between Submission and Freedom]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Temkina, A., Rotkirch, A., Zdravomyslova, E. (eds.) (2009). Novyj byt v sovremennoj Rossii: gendernye issledovanija povsednevnosti [from Rus.: New Everyday Life in Contemporary Russia: Gender Researches of Everyday Life]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Thomä, D. (2016). Puer robustus - Eine Philosophie des Störenfrieds [from German: Puer Robustus - A Philosophy of the Troublemaker]. Frankfurt а.M.: Suhrkamp.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 279 Timofeeva, O. (2009). Vvedenie v erotičeskuju filosofiju Žorža Bataja [from Rus.: Introduction to the Erotic Philosophy of Georges Bataille]. Moskva: NLO. Timofeeva, O. (2017). Istorija životnych [from Rus.: History of Animals]. Moskva: NLO. Timofeeva, O. (2020). How to Love a Homeland. Cairo: Kayfa ta. Tolokonnikowa, N. (2016). Anleitung für eine Revolution [from German: Revolution Guide]. Berlin: Hanser. Tolstykh, V. (ed.). (1992). Marksizm: pro i kontra [from Rus.: Marxism: pro und contra]. Moskva: Respublika. Trubina, E., Ušakin, S. (eds.). (2009). Travma: Punkty [from Rus.: Trauma: Stations]. Moskva: NLO. Tul’činskij, G. (2007). Istorii po žizni: opyt personologičeskoj sistematizacii [from Rus.: Stories after Life: Attempt at a Personological Systematization]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Tuzova, T. (2001). Specifika filosofskoj refleksii [from Rus.: Peculiarity of Philosophical Reflection]. Minsk: Pravo i ekonomika. Uffelmann, D. (1999). Die russische Kulturosophie. Logik und Axiologie der Argumentation [from German: Russian Culturosophy. Logic and Axiology of Argumentation]. Frankfurt/M.: Peter Lang. Umland, A., Bürgel, M., Keith, Th. (eds.). (2005-2009). Geistes- und sozialwissenschaftliche Hochschullehre in Osteuropa. I: Eindrücke, Erfahrungen und Analysen deutscher Gastlektoren; II. Deutsche und österreichische Impressionen zur Germanistik und Geschichtswissenschaft nach 1990; III. Transformation und Stagnation an postsowjetischen Universitäten. IV. Chancen und Hindernisse internationaler Bildungskooperation [from German: Humanities and Social Sciences University Teaching in Eastern Europe. I: Impressions, experiences and analyses of German guest lecturers; II. German and Austrian Impressions on German Studies and History after 1990; III. Transformation and Stagnation at Post-Soviet Universities. IV. Chances and obstacles of international educational cooperation]. Frankfurt/M.: Lang. Ušakin (Ouchakine), S. (ed.). (2007). Pole pola [from Rus.: The Field of Gender]. Vilnius: EHU. Usmanova, A. (ed.). (2007). Gender i transgressija v vizual’nych iskusstvach [from Rus.: Gender and Transgression in the Visual Arts]. Vilnius: EHU. Utekhin, I. (2004). Očerki kommunal’nogo byta [from Rus.: Sketches of the Communal Everyday Life]. Moskva: OGI.

280 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Vajnštejn, O. ([2005] 2017). Dendi: moda, literatura, stil’ žizni [from Rus.: Dandy: Fashion, Literature, Lifestyle]. Moskva: NLO. Vakhitov, R. (2017). Revolucija, kotoraja spasla Rossiju [from Rus.: The Revolution that Saved Russia]. Moskva: Algoritm. Vakhštain, V. (2011). Sociologija povsednevnosti i teorija frejmov [from Rus.: The Sociology of Everyday Life and Framing Theory]. SanktPeterburg: EU. van der Zweerde, E. (1997). Soviet Historiography of Philosophy: IstorikoFilosofskaja Nauka. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer Vasiliuk, F. (2003). Metodologičeskij analiz v psichologii [from Rus.: The Methodological Analysis in Psychology]. Moskva: MGPPU. Vasiljev, V. (2014). Soznanie i vešči: očerk fenomenalistskoj ontologii [from Rus.: Consciousness and Things: An Attempt at a Phenomenalist Ontology]. Moskva: Librokom. Vasiljev, V. (2017). V zaščitu klassičeskogo kompatibilizma: Esse o svobode voli [from Rus.: On the Justification of Classical Compatibilism: An Essay on Free Will]. Moskva: Librokom. Vasiljev, V. (2020). Devid Jum i zagadki ego filosofii [from Rus.: David Hume and the Riddles of His Philosophy]. Moskva: Lenand. Vasiljeva, T. (2008). Poetika antičnoj filosofii [from Rus.: The Poetics of Ancient Philosophy]. Moskva: Triksta. Vdovina, G. (2009). Jazyk neočevidnogo. Učenija o znakach v scholastike XVII v. [from Rus.: The Language of the Unobvious. Doctrines of Signs in 17th Century Scholasticism]. Moskva: St. Thomas Institut für Philosophie, Theologie und Geschichte. Vdovina, G. (2019). Intencional’nost’ i žizn’. Filosofskaja psichologija postsrednevekovoj scholastiki [from Rus.: Intentionality and Life. Philosophical Psychology of Late Medieval Scholasticism]. Moskva, Sankt-Peterburg: CGI. Vdovina, G. (2020). Chimery v lesach scholastiki [from Rus.: Chimeras in the Woods of Scholasticism. Ens Rationis and the Objective Being]. Sankt-Peterburg: SPbDA, RGPU. Venediktova, T. (2017). Literatura kak opyt, ili ‘buržuaznyj’ čitatel’ kak kul’turnyj geroj [from Rus.: Literature as Experience or The ‘Bourgeois’ Reader as Cultural Hero]. Moskva: NLO. Vizgin, V. (2004). Na puti k drugomu: ot školy podozrenija k škole doverija [from Rus.: On the Way to the Other: From the School of Suspicion to the School of Trust]. Moskva: Jazyki slaj’anskoj kul’tury. Vizgin, V. (Hg.) (2001). Ot filosofii žizni k filosofii kul’tury [from Rus.: From the Philosophy of Life to the Philosophy of Culture]. SanktPeterburg: Aletheia.

CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHY IN RUSSIA 281 Vol’f, M. (2007). Rannjaja grečeskaja filosifija i drevnij Iran [from Rus.: Early Greek Philosophy and Ancient Iran]. Sankt Peterburg: Aletheia. Volkov, D. (2011). Bostonskij zombi. D. Dennet i ego teorija soznanija [from Rus.: The Boston Zombie. Daniel Dennett and his Theory of Consciousness]. Moskva: URSS. Volkov, D. (2018). Svoboda voli. Ill’uzija ili vozmožnost’ [from Rus.: Freedom of the Will. Illusion or Possibility]. Moskva: Karjera. Volkova, N. (2017). Plotin o materii i zle [from Rus.: Plotinus on Matter and Evil]. Moskva: Aquilon. Yampolsky, M. (1996). Demon i labirint. Diagrammy, deformacii, mimesis [from Rus.: The Demon and the Labyrinth. Diagrams, Deformations, Mimesis]. Moskva: NLO. Yampolsky, M. (2000). Nabl’udatel’. Očerki istorii videnija [from Rus.: The Observer. Studies on the History of Seeing]. Moskva: Ad Marginem. Yampolsky, M. (2001). O blizkom. Očerki nemimetičeskogo zrenija [from Rus.: From the Near. Studies of Non-Mimetic Seeing]. Moskva: NLO. Yampolsky, M. (2004). Jazyk - telo - slučaj: kinematograf i poiski smysla [from Rus.: Language - Body - Chance: Cinema and the Search for Meaning]. Moskva: NLO. Yampolsky, M. (2020). Lovuška dl’a l’va. Modernistskaja forma kak sposob myšlenija bez ‘pon’atij’ i ‘bol’šich idej’ [from Rus.: Lion Trap. Modernist Form as a Way of Thinking without ‘Terms’ and ‘Big Ideas’]. SanktPeterburg: Seans. Zajcev (Zaicev), A. (1993). Das griechische Wunder: Die Entstehung der griechischen Zivilisation [from German: The Greek Miracle: The Emergence of Greek Civilization]. Konstanz: Universitätsverlag. Zam’atin, D. (2006). Kul’tura i prostranstvo: modelirovanie geografičeskich obrazov [from Rus.: Culture and Space: Modeling Geographic Images]. Moskva: Znak. Zam’atin, D. (2014). Postgeografija: kapital(izm) geografičeskich obrazov [from Rus.: Postgeography: Capital(ism) of Geographical Images]. SanktPeterburg: Gumanitarnaja akademija. Zamiatin, D. (2004). Metageografija: prostranstvo obrazov i obrazy prostranstva [from Rus.: Metageography: the Space of Images and the Images of Space]. Moskva: Agraf. Zdravomyslova, E. (2015). 12 lekcij po gendernoj sociologii [from Rus.: 12 Lectures on the Sociology of Gender]. Sankt-Peterburg: EU. Zenkin, S. (2011). Intellektual’nyj jazyk epochi: istorija idej, istorija slov [from Rus.: Intellectual Language of the Age: History of Ideas, History of Words]. Moskva: NLO.

282 MICHAIL MAIATSKY Zenkin, S. (2012a). Nebožestvennoe sakral’noe: teorija i chudožestvennaja praktika [from Rus.: The non-divine Sacred: Theory and Art Practice]. Moskva: RGGU. Zenkin, S. (2012b). Raboty o teorii [from Rus.: Studies about the Theory]. Moskva: NLO. Žerebkina, I. (2003). Gendernye 90-e, ili Fallosa ne suščestvuet [from Rus.: The 1990s Gender Years or There Is No Phallus]. Sankt-Peterburg: Aletheia. Zimovec, S. (1996). Molčanie Gerasima: psichoanalitičeskie i filosofskie esse o russkoj kul’ture [from Rus.: Gerasim’s Silence: Psychoanalytical and Philosophical Essays on Russian Culture]. Moskva: Gnosis. Zimovec, S. (2003). Kliničeskaja antropologija [from Rus.: Clinical Anthropology]. Moskva: Pragmatika kul’tury. Žmud’ (Zhmud), L. (1997). Wissenschaft, Philosophie und Religion im frühen Pythagoreismus [from German: Science, Philosophy and Religion in Early Pythagoreanism]. Berlin: Akademie Verlag (russ. Orig. 1994). Žmud’, L. (2006). The Origin of the History of Science in Classical Antiquity. Berlin: W. de Gruyter (russ. Orig. 2002). Žmud’, L. (2012). Pythagoras and the Early Pythagoreans. Oxford: Oxford UP (russ. Orig. 2012).

8

Ukraine

The Philosophical Process in Post-Soviet Ukraine* Denys Kiryukhin Józef Bocheński, one of the most influential Western Sovietologists, stated in 1967: Philosophy is a more important factor in the Soviet Union than in any nonCommunist country. (Bocheński 1967: 6)

Philosophy indeed had a key role to play in the USSR. Never before had philosophy as a scientific discipline been so influential in the political sphere: it defined the ideal of the new man, justified the logic and meaning of revolutionary transformations, and provided legitimacy to the political regime. Hence the high status of philosophy in the Soviet informal humanities’ hierarchy and society’s genuine interest in philosophical works. This is also why the inner factions struggle within the Communist Party, which was still allowed in the 1920s, was often at the same time a philosophical discussion. Hence, finally, the special attention of the authorities to the content of philosophers’ work, whose problems and general direction were adjusted if necessary, as was the case, for example, with Andrej Ždanov’s (1896–1948) famous speech during the philosophical discussion in connection with the publication of Georgij Alexandrov’s “The History of Western European Philosophy”.1 Pavel Kopnin (1922–1971), who first headed the * 1

This chapter is based on a text previously published in The Ideology and Politics Journal, no. 1, 2022. The author is grateful to Mikhail Minakov for his help in preparing the translation of this paper into English. Ždanov criticized the Soviet philosophers and, in particular, said: “Our Party is in dire need of a betterment in philosophical work. The rapid changes that every day brings to our socialist existence are not generalized by our philosophers and are not explained in terms of Marxist dialectics” (Ždanov 1952: 36).

283

284 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Institute of Philosophy in Kyiv, and then in Moscow, is credited with a fairly precise definition of Soviet philosophy formulated in the 1960s as essentially hermeneutic, oriented toward the search for the only true reading of the central doctrine (see: Dmitriev 2010: 21). Not surprisingly, philosophy in the Soviet Union was divided according to the principle of the relation to this doctrine at the official (connected with the justification of ideology), semi-official (the same Ilyenkovian Marxism or Merab Mamardašvili’s concept of “converted forms”), and non-official levels (e.g., philosophical positions of Sergej Averincev or Alexej Losev). And the degree of development and the professional level of the latter two, in fact, determined the extent to which one could speak of the philosophical process in a particular Soviet republic. We must also pay tribute to the perspicacity of Eugene Kamenka, the Australian Marxist philosopher, who stated in an article on the Soviet philosophy in 1963 that the work of establishing a systematic Marxist philosophy is essentially complete, and that the maximum that can be expected from Soviet philosophy in the future would be “a modest contribution to logical theory, philosophy of science, ontology, the development of a realist theory of knowledge and empirical theory of consciousness, and the discussion of the empirical content of ethical and aesthetic judgments” (Kamenka 1963: 19). In fact, the modesty of this contribution was related to the limitations that Soviet Marxism, which had become ideological dogma, imposed on philosophical work. There were several centers of philosophical thought in the Soviet Union, one of which was in Ukraine. This is not surprising given the philosophical culture stemming from the work of philosophers of the Kyiv University (Saint Vladimir University), the Kyiv Theological Academy, and the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy. In the 1920s–30s, there was a short period of active development of Marxist philosophy (that sometimes is also called the early Soviet philosophy), mainly on the basis of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. But it left virtually no legacy, since all its influential representatives were repressed, and the philosophical process was interrupted; the process was revived only after the end of WWII. The active development of philosophy in Soviet Ukraine, as well as

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 285 in the Soviet Union in general, began with the Khrushchev’s Thaw, and the center of philosophical life was the Institute of Philosophy founded in Kyiv in 1946. Here, in the 1960s, under Kopnin’s leadership, a school of researchers of logic and methodology of science was formed. Also in this period, the Institute organized the study of the Latin scholastic heritage of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, for which experts in classical languages were gathered from all over Ukraine, who were tasked with translating the works into Ukrainian from Latin. Volodymyr Šynkaruk (1928–2001), Kopnin’s successor at the Kyiv Institute of Philosophy, promoted the anthropological studies of the legacy of Kant, Hegel, and Marx, and made the problem of consciousness one of the central themes of the Institute’s work. The Soviet philosophical condition left little room for philosophical freedom. Compared to Moscow, Kyiv was in an easier and more difficult situation at the same time. The simpler situation was due to the fact that the principal responsibility for the development of ideological doctrine laid with Moscow, which meant that the work in Kyiv could be more oriented towards logic, gnoseology, philosophy of science, aesthetics, where the contact with the official doctrine was minimal (and these were usually the areas where the most talented philosophers tended to go). In a more difficult situation, because all the basic philosophical texts and sources were, again, in Moscow, and the ideas from them often reached Kyiv, already read through the eyes of Moscow-based philosophers. At the same time, Kyiv-based philosophers had to find a difficult balance between two tasks: research into the history of philosophical thought in Ukraine and criticism of Ukrainian nationalism from the perspective of Soviet Marxism. The lack of balance would lead to the repression. For example, in 1972, two scholars from the Kyiv Institute of Philosophy (KIP) were arrested for anti-Soviet activities, while the staff of the Institute was accused of having too little studies “directly related to the struggle against Zionism and Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism” (Šeremeta 2013: 98). In this way, philosophers were reminded that in the eyes of the authorities only participation in the ideological struggle justified the existence of their institution.

286 DENYS KIRYUKHIN In “Philosophy and Politics,” Hannah Arendt makes one curious observation that “Socrates, in failing to convince the city, had shown that the city is no safe place for the philosopher” partially “because of the truth he possesses” (Arendt 1990: 75). As the experience of the Soviet Union shows, the polis can indeed carry danger for the philosopher, but not only in the sense to which Arendt points—that is, when the philosopher has the courage to speak the truth—but also when the polis, having trusted the philosopher, accepts his truth totally. Here, too, the Soviet modernizing project was based on a philosophical doctrine. But once this doctrine had been turned from the philosophical truth into the basis for the organization of political power, every critical reflection or doubt in philosophical truth turned into a doubt in the power itself. Hence, the Soviet authorities’ special attention to the philosophical process. Therefore, at the very moment when philosophy seemed to have achieved its greatest influence on society, it lost its freedom, and, alas, itself: its activity was already subordinated to political rather than philosophical tasks proper.

Freedom and Loss With the collapse of the Soviet Union, Soviet philosophy, which was not viable outside the Marxist-Leninist ideological system, has fallen into oblivion. Nobody really expressed much regret about that kind of philosophy: in the late Soviet times, philosophy became too scholastic, in the negative meaning of the word, and it was scarcely interesting even for those who engaged in it. Meanwhile, the possibilities offered by the post-Soviet academic freedom captured the public’s imagination, and the tasks of reorganizing the philosophical process left no room for any nostalgia. Although we tend to contrast Soviet philosophy with the philosophy that began to develop in the independent Ukraine since 1991, this should not be understood as if the philosophical process was formed anew from scratch after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the field of philosophy, in particular, there was no such intergenerational conflict as was observed in the same literary environment, when, for example, at the 1992 congress of the Union

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 287 of Writers the young poet Volodymyr Cybul’ko began his speech before the venerable crowd of Ukrainian Soviet literature with the words: Gentlemen the disabled of creativity! (cited from: Hnatyuk 2005: 198)2

In post-Soviet Ukraine, the philosophy, which had been formed in Soviet times in the “shadow” of official doctrine, where just some life had been flowing in the conditions of rigid ideological diktat, has found its continuation and began to develop gradually as state control has been loosened. Leszek Kolakowski once noted with regard to the intellectual life in Eastern Europe in the second half of the 1980s that communist ideology did not collapse overnight, but that at some point people simply stopped paying attention to it because everyone was already thinking and working outside its framework. This also applies in full measure to the situation of philosophy in Ukraine. Petro Jolon (1933–2019), the KIP long-time deputy director, once made a very revealing observation: an academic commission which conducted an attestation of the scientific activity of the Institute of Philosophy in the 1990s noted in its conclusions that the Institute was “one of the few academic institutions in humanities where there was no need to significantly change research topics and ideological approaches to their development with the fall of the totalitarian system” (Jolon 2017: 55). And indeed, research in the history of philosophy in Ukraine 2

This does not mean that in philosophy and humanities, this conflict of generations and worldviews was absent at all. For example, in 1999, the Kyiv newspaper “Den’” published a letter of a graduate student of the Franko Lviv State University (LSU), in which he wrote: “Teachers of historical materialism, dialectical materialism, and scientific communism, who received academic degrees and positions under the totalitarian pro-Moscow regime in Ukraine, continue to lecture and publish articles and monographs, propagate the old worldview, old methods of teaching philosophy and psychology. The humanities require urgent decommunization and development in the direction of genuine knowledge of man and the world” (Karivec 1999). But this conflict did not become any noticeable phenomenon in philosophy, unlike in literature, where already in the 1990s, to the displeasure of the “classics” of Ukrainian Soviet literature, a group of young writers (the so-called “Stanislav phenomenon”) appeared, whose works quickly gained popularity and their influence went beyond the literary sphere.

288 DENYS KIRYUKHIN or research in the German idealism that had been conducted at the Institute since the 1960s, as well as the studies of cognition, culture, practical philosophy, and philosophical anthropology found their continuation after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Where radical changes were needed from the very beginning was in the teaching of philosophy. One of the most urgent tasks was to change the teaching of philosophy courses, whose principles had already been debated in the Ukrainian philosophical community at the very beginning of the 1990s.3 New textbooks, the first of which was written in 1993 by a team of authors which included scholars of the Institute of Philosophy and professors from the Shevchenko Kyiv National University (KNU), began to appear in big quantities, though rarely of a decent quality. On that Anatolij Jermolenko (b. 1952), the KIP current director, noted that for some time: … the textbooks have become almost the main genre in the scientific and teaching work of the higher education institutions. This phenomenon became particularly distorted when the Ministry of Education and Science decided that it was compulsory to write a textbook under its voucher for academic degrees. This led to a period when almost every assistant professor or professor was required to publish his or her own textbook, and universities flaunted almost a “complete collection of textbooks”; they were given state prizes, the title of corresponding member and member of the National Academy of Science. This work could hardly be called fruitful, because the new textbooks were, for the most part, only a “rehashing” of ... outdated Marxist-Leninist concepts, replacing dialectical materialism with dialectical idealism. (Jermolenko 2016: 90)

The mentioned problems and shortcomings were overcome to a great extent when leading Ukrainian philosophers started publishing collections of their lectures or textbooks written on the basis of their courses, e.g. “The History of Ukrainian Philosophy” by Vilen Hors’kyj (1931–2007) (Hors’kyj 1997), “Communicative Practical Philosophy” by Anatolij Jermolenko (Jermolenko 1999), “Ethics. Course of Lectures” by Viktor Malakhov (b. 1948) (Malakhov 2001). The problem was also resolved due to the translations of Western textbooks, in particular, when “The Basics

3

For more on how the curriculum of philosophy teaching in Ukraine changed in the 1990s, see: Minakov 2014.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 289 of Metaphysics” by Emerich Coreth, “The Introduction into Continental Philosophy” by Simon Critchley, and “The Modern Political Theories” by Klaus von Beyme were published. Academic freedom has opened access to the previously prohibited philosophical texts for the Ukrainian philosophical community. At the same time this freedom demonstrated the lack of Ukrainian editions of the philosophical classics and of the most important contemporary works. Therefore, while philosophical education in post-Soviet Ukraine began with the writing of new textbooks, the philosophical process proper has largely began with translations. The task of translators of philosophical texts was not simply to make them known to those who had no opportunity to read them in the original. It was conceived from the very beginning as a larger goal: to create a Ukrainian philosophical terminology, a modern Ukrainian philosophical language (Jermolenko 2016: 94), in order to stop looking “at Western philosophical trends through the eyes of contemporary Russian translators and researchers” and thus “to balance the one-sided influence of Russian reception of world philosophy with an appeal to other philosophical traditions” (Yosypenko 2019: 39). Perhaps, one can say that while writing textbooks became for quite a long time the main genre of the philosophical education work, the translations, commentaries, and formation of terminological apparatus in Ukrainian became the main genre of philosophical investigations. Active translating process, accompanied by quite heated debates about the accuracy of the translation of a philosophical terminology into Ukrainian, goes on even today with much attention paid to the translation of works of philosophical classics, especially of Kant and Hegel. Having gained freedom in Ukraine, philosophy has at the same time lost the privileged status (as well as access to resources) that it had in Soviet times. Public interest in philosophical research has also declined. In particular, Professor Anatoly Loj (b. 1947) noted: “In my youth, our (philosophical) monographs were circulating among non-philosophers: if you did not buy enough copies to give to your friends, that was it, you could not buy them later,” whereas today “there is no demand for them” (Loj et al. 2021:

290 DENYS KIRYUKHIN 182).4 But this lack of public demand for philosophical research is not a consequence of a decline in interest in the humanities in general. It is connected rather with the fact that the modern Ukrainian republic—political community—is based on other grounds than the Soviet one. Independent Ukraine did not require, as it did in Soviet times, for example, a large-scale critical analysis of the theories of social development. In the post-Soviet times, the concepts of development were usually perceived uncritically, with no attention to the discussions around them in the West, simply under the influence of fashion or authority that one or another creator had. The best illustration of such acceptation was the ease with which Francis Fukuyama’s theory of the end of history was accepted in Ukraine. The central theoretical and practical problem for Ukrainian society in the first years of independence was—and, in many respects, still is—the problem of identity, which has been debated among Ukrainian intellectuals since the 19th century, when the search for an answer to the questions of who we are and where the borders of our community lie took over the minds of the East European peoples. The Soviet project pulled Ukraine out of these East European identity discussions, but with independence, the search for a vision of Ukraine being between East and West5—or, as Milan Kundera defined the space of Eastern Europe, between Germany and Russia—became the main theoretical task for Ukrainian intellectuals and the practical task for the political class. Kundera’s famous question of whether communism is the negation or realization of Russian history was the first of those that arose as part of a revived debate about how we should understand Ukraine. Some intellectuals gave an unambiguous answer: the Soviet period was the negation of Ukrainian history. Hence the metaphor of “spiritual Chernobyl,” which was used to describe the consequences of the Soviet modernization project for Ukrainian 4 5

The decline of public interest in philosophical literature has been noted everywhere. See, e.g.: Jermolenko et al. 2019: 23–30. For example, Polish researcher Olja Hnatyuk singled out five views of the Ukrainian intellectuals of what Ukraine and Ukrainian culture are. See: Hnatyuk 2005: 346–347.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 291 culture, and the assessment of the whole Soviet period as an era of totalitarianism, without the attempts, which we see in Russia, to justify it somehow. Hence, finally, the special role of history, which became a tool to justify national sovereignty. Under the post-Soviet condition, the center of intellectual life shifted from the philosophical, and to a greater extent the historicalphilosophical, research to the sphere of literary, cultural, and historical studies. A certain peripherality of philosophical knowledge in the political field is understandable, since philosophy could offer less to the community’s political imagination than writers, cultural historians, or publicists who are active in the sphere of images and emotions. This is why their works in independent Ukraine have attracted—and continue to attract— incomparably more public interest and has bigger influence on the public debate than philosophical thought. This is proved by the fact that only those philosophical works which focus on questions of national identity, were re-published several times6: for example, “Essay on the History of Culture of Ukraine” and “The Red Century” by Myroslav Popovyč (1930–2018) (Popovyč 1998; Popovyč 007), or “Philosophy of the Ukrainian Idea and the European Context” by Oksana Zabužko (b. 1960) (Zabužko 1993). At the same time, philosophers, as public intellectuals, have played and continue to play an appreciable role in the cultural, social, and political life of the country—philosophers, but not philosophy as an academic discipline. However, for a long time, not only did the authorities stop interfering in philosophers’ work, but philosophers themselves— experiencing deep Soviet trauma caused by ideological restrictions on their thinking and subordination of their activity to political goals—sought to distance themselves from the government as much as possible. A peculiar escape from politics for almost fifteen years became one of the principles upon which the philosophical process in Ukraine was built. The resolution of the II All-Ukrainian Philosophical Congress, held in Kyiv in 1995, stated directly that “the first and necessary condition for the existence and 6

Because these books caused a great outcry and public discussion.

292 DENYS KIRYUKHIN development of philosophical culture is the depoliticization of philosophical consciousness of individuals and society,” and also emphasized the necessity of freedom “of philosophical thought from any politics” (quoted from: Minakov 2014: 401). This attitude, which contributed to the cautious attitudes towards political philosophy as such, has not been fully eradicated even today in Ukraine. For example, the Kyiv Institute of Philosophy still has no department or sector of political philosophy.7 And even at philosophy departments in Ukrainian universities, the courses in political philosophy have started to be taught only since 2010s— and not in all universities. The first, and so far the only, Ukrainian textbook on political philosophy was published in 2012 (see: Ševčuk 2012). The political mass protests of 2004 and 2013–2014, in which many representatives of the philosophical community took noticeable part, stimulated a change in the attitude of Ukrainian philosophy to politics. The Maidan8 was not only one of the key events in the history of independent Ukraine, but also the philosophical event:9 it helped philosophers to start thinking about current political processes and became actors and subjects of philosophical analysis simultaneously. In the context, under the direct influence of political events, the Ukrainian philosophical community organized a series of round tables, seminars, and conferences devoted to the interpretation of the Maidan phenomenon. These endeavors have started the process of new understanding of the philosophy’s role of in Ukrainian contemporary society. In particular, from the positions of discursive ethics, Anatolij Jermolenko defined the political role of philosophy in the following way:

7

8 9

Its creation is already being discussed in Kyiv. In addition, a seminar on political philosophy began at the Institute in 2019, to which special issues of the Philosophska Dumka Journal were devoted in 2020 and 2022. Many of the research questions on which the Institute works—freedom, legitimacy, democracy, the common good—are in fact those of political philosophy. With this concept, I mean the political protests of 2004, 2013-2014. For Ukrainian philosophers, the Maidan was primarily a discursive space. On this, see: Yasna et al. 2016.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 293 To develop procedures and methods of argumentation in order to ultimately show and tell the participants of the discourse how to come to agreement and not fall into the traps of prejudice and bias. (Yasna et al. 2016: 30)

In other words, the role of philosophy is seen to be the guardian of rationality in a society. This position, which for now has not yet gained much of support among Ukrainian intellectuals, captures the rejection of “escaping from politics” and, at the same time, reduces the significance of philosophy for the discussion of national identity, which is dominated by other disciplines. However, the political transformations of Ukraine in recent years have largely resolved the identity issue by defining it quite unambiguously, which opened new opportunities for philosophy, especially for political philosophy. This is not only the development of rationality and critical reflection, but also a return to the function of providing ideological legitimation and theoretical justification for public policy.10 As John Rawls rightly pointed out, political philosophy is 10

The issue of the ideology’s necessity is considered in two aspects, and in both cases it deals not with the restoration of a total ideology; this necessity is viewed as a need in a set of values and meanings for an individual and for a state. Although it is difficult to be sure whether this opposition is a self-deception or in fact those who hold it, have a different understanding of the social and political role of ideology and the role of philosophy in its substantiation than in Soviet times. On the one hand, it is the need for ideological support of the state’s development: “The specificity of the current stage of development of Ukrainian spirituality is determined … by the urgent needs of the necessary ideological support of the state leaders’ policy. We are not talking about the creation of some new super-ideology designed to regulate the way of life and to define thinking of all citizens of Ukraine, but about the definition and subsequent increase of the system of fundamental state and human values, supported by the majority of the nation” (Bojchenko 2013: 208). On the other hand, ideology is viewed as a worldview, a set of values and meanings: the intellectual context of modern Ukraine is defined by “an intolerable lack of ideology ... I do not call for the development and directive imposition of a single and total ideology for all, but worldview-ideological accents, some matrix spiritual-intellectual help to a contemporary in the formation of meanings of life should be” (Kebuladze et al. 2017: 11). The take of the social philosopher Mykola Myhalʹčenko (1942– 2021), author of Soviet-era texts “The Communist Ideology and the Activity of the Masses” (1976) and “The Political Ideology as a Form of Social Consciousness” (1981), on this matter was well-described in his book “The Ukraine as a New Historical Reality” (2004): “The ideological dictatorship (even in its religious form) conceals many dangers in itself. But no less dangerous for

294 DENYS KIRYUKHIN always in danger of being used to justify and defend the status quo (Rawls 2001: 4), that is, of being used for ideological purposes, as was the case in Soviet times. This danger is especially high for the post-Soviet societies, with their extremely weak democratic institutions and underdeveloped social critique, within which philosophers could respond to political processes. Well, in fact, this is the only role in which philosophers do not pose a threat to democracy.

The Problem of Soviet Marxism We lived a great life, but we lived it in vain. This Boris Grušin’s expression (see: Dmitriev 2010: 21) reflected the self-perception of many Marxists after the Soviet era ended. For scholars who dedicated a considerable part of their lives developing Soviet philosophy or simply worked within its theoretical paradigm, the post-Soviet philosophical condition, associated with the rejection of Marxism-Leninism as the state ideology and as the basic methodological basis of humanities’ research, often turned out to be an existential problem. In post-Soviet Ukraine, this problem should have been exacerbated by a more severe repulsion from the Soviet past than in a number of other post-Soviet countries. Most of Ukrainian intellectuals have almost unequivocally assessed the Soviet period as an era of totalitarianism. Indeed, for a number of philosophers, the post-Soviet development of Ukrainian philosophy had to be built largely through the denial of the Soviet legacy and Soviet Marxism. Proponents of this position do not consider the distinction between Marxism-Leninism and, for example, Western neo-Marxism as a matter of principle, placing responsibility for the tragic events of the twentieth century on Marxism in general, and therefore advocate total decommunization. Others, who supported de-Sovietization, but not the the statehood is the thesis of a de-ideologized state. Every people, every nation, every state, in order to preserve itself, must have its own ideology” (Myhalʹčenko 2004: 200). It should be admitted that not all Ukrainian philosophers support the idea of the necessity of establishing a unified state ideology (see, for example: Tur 2006: 342).

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 295 abandon of Marxism, at least in its Western interpretation, together with Jacques Derrida, defended the position distinguishing between Marxism as such and Leninism, and it is the latter they associate with the totalitarianism. They sought to show that contrary to the official doctrine of Marxism-Leninism or in parallel with it, in the Soviet times, there was also relatively free philosophical processes worthy of attention and continuation. This task required a rethinking of the legacy of the Ukrainian Soviet philosophers. In this respect, the book “In Search of the Non-Lost Time” (2002), written by Vitalij Tabačkovs’kyj (1944–2006) (Tabačkovsʹkyj 2002), one of the most prominent representatives of the Sixties’ philosophers, was symptomatic by offering a more nuanced review of the Soviet philosophy’s development at least at the Kiev Institute of Philosophy. The first half of the 1990s was a period when Ukrainian philosophers conducted the “self-revision” of their own “books of the totalitarian epoch, correlating their texts to its contexts and subcontexts” (Tabačkovsʹkyj 2002: 9). This was also a period of the attempts to conceptualize the heritage of the Soviet epoch. Often this self-revision was not so difficult to do, since for many the references to the Marxist doctrinal texts were only formal components of an academic text written on issues outside of the frameworks of the official orthodoxy. This labor of revision and reinterpretation of the past has allowed it for the conclusion that the Kyiv school of philosophy was formed in the KIP in Soviet times; this school’s features included its humanistic, according to some, or personalistic, according to others, interpretation of the Marxism (Melkov 2014: 70). As some researchers argue, it would be “unreasonable to limit the functioning of the Kyiv school of philosophy by the frames of the Soviet philosophy in Ukraine, particularly in Kyiv. Indeed, this was the context of its emergence. However, the school itself ... outgrew this context” (Bojčenko 2015: 56). Thus, although the Kyiv School was an extra-Soviet11

11

It could not be anti-Soviet though, since it had been developing for decades within the framework of official Soviet academic philosophy.

296 DENYS KIRYUKHIN phenomenon, it turned out to be that very “Soviet legacy” which seemed worth of being preserved. The publication of many studies, and especially of the threevolume selected works by Volodymyr Šynkaruk (Šynkaruk 20032004) and Maria Zlotina’s (1921–2000) doctoral dissertation “The General Laws of Development and Principle of Reflection” (1969) (Zlotina 2008), as well as a series of research conferences held at the Institute of Philosophy in the 1990s–2000s, allowed to come up with the general idea of key representatives of the Kyiv school of philosophy: its founder was believed to be Šynkaruk, and its foundational idea, according to Vitaly Tabačkovs’kyj, was the postulate that: Human existence, conceptualized in the concepts of “existence,” “time,” and “freedom,” has the meaning not of the human being in general (genus and species homo sapiens) but of the individual human person, of “each of us.” (Tabačkovsʹkyj 2002: 83)

Tabačkovs’kyj insisted that Soviet philosophers in Kyiv, largely due to their studies to the young Marx works, in their studied moved from the issues of the universal in human being, which the Marxism-Leninism emphasized, to the questions of individual existence and of the worldview. For this reason, the Kyiv philosophical school is also called the Kiev school of worldviewanthropological philosophy. The legacy of the school is usually interpreted from a Ukrainian-centric position. In particular, the emphasis is made on the fact that academic Ukrainian neo-Marxism, and later postMarxism, for which, in fact, national problems were not alien, emerged within the framework of the Kyiv School.12 There are indeed some grounds for this kind of interpretation, since the works of the School’s representatives dealt with quite a diverse subject matter, from the genesis of forms of thinking to the issues of semantics to the study of Grygorij Skovoroda’s philosophy and to the Slavic mythology. Acknowledging the somewhat abstract and 12

“This is definitely the Ukrainian neo-Marxism, where the national is not just a form; the universal and the national-Ukrainian here are in close connection” (Hrabovs’kyj 2014: 353).

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 297 moralizing nature of the Ukrainian neo-Marxism as it emerged during the 1960s–1980s, supporters of this interpretation demonstrated that the national neo-Marxism developed in the same intellectual and cultural space together with the Ukrainian national dissident movement,13 thus indirectly contributing to the development of the latter and becoming an important stage in development of the Ukrainian philosophical thought. For the post-Soviet philosophical condition, the Kyiv School is not a central philosophical process, but rather a sphere of memories. There are no philosophers who identify themselves as representatives of this School, while scholars do not study human existence and worldview with the dialectical method anymore. Nor should we write off the fact that these days “the very language in which the works of domestic thinkers of the recent past are written is sometimes perceived as hopelessly outdated and simply incomprehensible” (Melkov 2014: 84). The last circumstance is extremely important. Those who belonged to the Kyiv School worked in a self-contained “system” and therefore did not face the problem of translating their ideas “outside” the socialist camp and the Marxist tradition. Very few Western researchers have undertaken a substantial analysis of the Soviet philosophy proper, so that the language used by the Soviet philosophers and their conceptual and categorical apparatus remained largely incomprehensible to the Western intellectuals. In the situation of an open philosophical process, this initial conceitedness and “untranslatability” have become serious obstacles for the Kyiv philosophers to present themselves to the Western colleagues, and the reason why this tradition has remained local and has not been continued in post-Soviet Ukraine. Finally, by no means all Ukrainian philosophers acknowledge the fact that a particular Kyiv school of philosophy actually existed,

13

The dissident philosopher Vasyl Lisovyj (1937–2012) maked an important observation: “Between the broader intellectual and cultural movement of the Sixties and the professional (academic) philosophy of the 1960s and 1980s there was no sharp border not only in ideological terms, but also in terms of personalities” (Lisovyj 2007: 70).

298 DENYS KIRYUKHIN rather than being a construct formed in the course of the search for the “un-spent time.” According to Anatolij Jermolenko, A philosopher cannot be a “local scholar,” philosophy cannot be same “district-scale” philosophy, as unfortunately happened to the archaic concept of the “Kyiv anthropological-worldview school,” which turned into a simulacrum or even an ideologeme used by some dodgers from philosophy, who turned it into an “easy gesheft.” (Jermolenko et al. 2019: 20–21)

These critically minded philosophers argue that the legacy of the Soviet period, which is indeed significant for Ukrainian philosophy, is not reduced exclusively to the worldview tradition presented as the Kyiv School. In the Soviet period, the KIP was also developing the analytical approach or “critical rationalism in the broad sense of the word” (Lisovyj 2007: 80). It was less “expressive” in comparison with dialectical-worldview direction, largely because, unlike the latter, it had a great critical potential and direct focus upon the sociopolitical issues, which invariably aroused authorities’ suspicion. But in the end, it was the critical rationalism that developed in post-Soviet times, among other things contributing both to the tradition of communicative philosophy and to the gradual development of political philosophy in Ukraine. After the USSR collapsed, academic philosophy in Ukraine ceased to be Marxist, while Marx and his works ceased to be the subject of any interest. For example, between 2013 and 2021, not a single article on Marx’s philosophy was published in the country’s leading academic philosophy journal, the Philosophska Dumka [Philosophical Thought]. Marxism was not forgotten, but the related studies focused rather on the late Soviet Marxism and Western neo-Marxism. Behind this division, in fact, lies a deep regret for the loss of the intellectual space, which took place at the moment when philosophical truth turned into the political truth,—the space that the “authentic” Marx opened up himself, and that was virtually inaccessible to Soviet philosophers. It is no coincidence that the studies on the late Soviet Marxism—that one can find among the post-Soviet Ukrainian publications—try their best to answer the question of how much is the future philosophical

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 299 development hindered by the past traumas and the historical continuity. Ukrainian philosophers have not given an unequivocal answer to this question. For some, the intellectual “sinfulness” of the Soviet past was too deep to hope for the recovery; the hope for Ukrainian philosophy constituted only the generational change. As Anatolij Loj wrote, “having burst like a bubble, the philosophical worldview of the Eastern Marxism ... receded into the past, leaving essentially nothing behind, it was pulled along by ideology,” and the result of this philosophy’s “quasi-Faustian flirting with totalitarian ideology in the form of a self-assured anthropological worldview on principles of activity” was “the creative paralysis of philosophers of the older generation” (Loj 2003: 118, 130). Others denied the “Sovietness” (which, in the framework of Ukrainian intellectual discourse, means “sinfulness”) of the late Soviet philosophy, arguing that those “turns of the philosophical thought that were observed in the late twentieth century” in the West, “in some sense are also characteristic to the best works of the late Soviet Marxism” (Zagorodnûk 2003: 157). Or they consider it necessary for the Ukrainian philosophers to “settle their scores with the Marxism,” or more precisely, with the cynicism of the late Soviet Marxism (Jermolenko 2003), since they did not really believe in the truth of the Marxist theory; by doing this, philosophers can actually realize—in the current situation—this theory’s potential for the social critique, which was lost in the Soviet times. The idea that the critical and emancipatory energy of the Marxism, or, more precisely, of the Western neo-Marxism, is necessary for the postSoviet societies, as strange as this may seem in the Ukrainian case, given the dominant anti-communist narrative, is quite popular. The role of critical social reflection, which is associated with the neoMarxism, is seen in the fact that it helps society to overcome the preserved Soviet practices and, specifically, is important for the “ideological decommunization” of public life (Jevhen Bystryc’kyj) and the development of postcolonial and anti-imperialist studies, which allow to better understand the specifics of Ukrainian society and formulation of its development strategy (Serhij Grabovs’kyj).

300 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Academic philosophy in post-Soviet Ukraine positions itself as the heir to the traditions formed in the late Soviet period, but which have gone beyond the Soviet doctrine. This, in a sense, reconciles it with the past. Nevertheless, the late Soviet Marxism itself has not found a continuation in post-Soviet thought. Back in the mid-1960s, Louis Althusser has rightly noted that the slogan of humanism, which is the slogan that is believed to define the Kyiv school of thought, has no theoretical value, it has the value of practical guidance: one must move on from it to the concrete issues (Althusser 2005: 352). But it is precisely this transition that the late Soviet Marxism did not—and probably could not—make.

Fragmentation of Philosophical Space The Ukrainian philosophical space has fragmented very quickly when the state independence was achieved. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the existing informal hierarchy of philosophical institutes, whose position was determined by the proximity to non-Soviet philosophical literature and government, collapsed. In the Soviet times, the access to both provided the philosophers from the Moscow Institute of Philosophy with unquestionable privilege, while the philosophers from republican institutes of philosophy had a better access to those in comparison with the provincial universities’ staff. Under the new philosophical condition, access to the philosophical texts, foreign schools, and organizations was no longer limited by administrative and academic institutes, and the authorities were no longer interested in controlling the philosophical process. Due to this, the faculties, departments, and individual scholars have gained the possibility to directly establish communication with the philosophical centers around the world, and often they communicated with them more than with their Ukrainian colleagues. When the Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy had fallen, the philosophical space lost its common organizational infrastructure, methodological principles, and conceptual apparatus. This gave an opportunity for the development of methodological pluralism and

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 301 for the studies in various directions, in particular, of analytical philosophy, phenomenology, practical philosophy, philosophical theology, political philosophy, and gender studies. Two Ukrainian philosophical congresses were held in the early 1990s, which attempted “to organize philosophical life in Ukraine in the Soviet style, with huge assemblies and official congresses” (Minakov 2014: 403) and which were characterized by the desire to develop a common vision of philosophical development in the new conditions. However, all these organizational attempts proved fruitless. After 1995, when the Second Congress took place, there were no more such events. An attempt to replace “scientific communism” with “scientific nationalism” was also made at about that time: a number of former professors of the scientific communism came up with an initiative that, if implemented, would lead to the creation of a certain integrative ideological “discipline” for all educational institutions. But this idea, although it had influential supporters, met with resistance in the Institute of Philosophy and was not supported by the government of the time. The 1990s in Ukraine were a period of active institutional and informal development of philosophy. The KIP and the KNU Faculty of Philosophy continued to maintain their leading positions in Ukrainian philosophy, but new philosophical centers began to parallelly emerge. In 1991, the National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA) was founded—or, actually, reconstituted after its closure in 1817. Unlike the KNU, which focused on the use of “its own, Ukrainian forces to transform and improve the quality of philosophical education,” the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy pursued a different strategy: it introduced “a Western approach to education—a liberal arts education model” and involved Western professors to teach there (Minakov 2014: 411, 412). The NaUKMA soon became one of the country’s cultural and philosophical centers, largely also because a number of influential professors from the KNU and the scholars from the KIP were hired there. For a long time, the KNU and the NaUKMA represented two different philosophical cultures and educational practices. The former was predominantly oriented toward working with classical philosophical texts, whereas the NaUKMA’s approach focused on

302 DENYS KIRYUKHIN joining the classics with philosophical creativity and discussion. Moreover, unlike the KNU, the NaUKMA, from the very first days of its existence, had a special romantic attraction: it had no connection with the Soviet past and symbolized the Ukrainian national-cultural revival, which initially determined its political orientation as well. New philosophical departments and chairs were created during the first decade of independence in many cities of Ukraine. For example, in 1992 the Faculty of Philosophy at the Franko Lviv National University (LNU) was restored; it was closed by the Soviet government after WWII. The activities of the Lviv and Warsaw Philosophical Schools were connected with its pre-war work in the LNU, and today much attention is paid to studying its legacy at the LNU restored faculty. In 2000, the Philosophy Department was opened at the Odessa National University. In 2001, the Karazin Kharkiv National University established its own philosophical faculty. And in 2002, when the Ukrainian Catholic University (UCU) was created on the basis of the Lviv Theological Academy, it has founded its Philosophy and Theology Department. In the end, as Anatolij Jermolenko rightly noted, the number of philosophy departments was perhaps too large for Ukraine (Jermolenko et al. 2019: 22). After 2014, in a result of the education reform, many philosophical faculties and departments entered the crisis since philosophy in Ukraine was not a compulsory discipline anymore—the first time since Soviet times. As a result, philosophy has been mainly excluded from the curricula of the nonphilosophical specialties, hence the number of jobs for the graduates of philosophy departments has been significantly reduced. Philosophy in Ukraine, especially in the first two decades of its independence, was philosophy of personalities rather than the one of schools. In particular, the NaUKMA became the center of studies of Ukrainian philosophical thought largely thanks to Professor Vilen Hors’kyj who promoted the development of the culturological approach in historical and philosophical studies and, consequently, the attention of researchers not only to philosophical works proper, but also to the texts on metaphysics and theology

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 303 (see: Menžulin 2015: 121–124). In independent Ukraine, the development of phenomenology began at the KNU Philosophical Faculty thanks to the activities of Professor Anatolij Loj, who also promoted the Kantian studies. Also at the KNU, due to the guidance of Professor Iryna Dobronravova (b. 1947), the school of philosophy of science survived since the Soviet times. Thanks to Professor Tetiana Abolina (1950–2015) got its own development Applied Ethics. And Ukrainian philosophy of law is associated primarily with Professor Sergey Maximov (b. 1956) and the Department of Theory and Philosophy of Law at the Yaroslav the Wise National Law University in Kharkiv. In addition to new faculties, public philosophical organizations began to develop in the mid-1990s in Ukraine. One of the first such organizations was the Ukrainian Philosophical Foundation (UPF, founded in 1994), which exists until today. The UPF was headed by Jevhen Bystryc’kyj (b. 1948), then Sergij Proleev (b. 1959), and by Bystryc’kyj again—both being representatives of the middle generation of the post-Soviet Ukrainian philosophers.14 The UPF has several goals, but its main task was to organize and facilitate communication among Ukrainian philosophers, their cooperation with foreign colleagues, and promotion of philosophical research in Ukraine. Throughout its history, the UPF has acted as a platform for a wide variety of philosophical communities and organizations. Among such organizations are the Ukrainian Phenomenological Society, the Kant Society in Ukraine, the Union of Researchers of Modern Philosophy (the Pascal Society), and the Russian Philosophy Society—all founded in the second half of the 1990s. The UPF has also organized multiple conferences and international summer schools, with the participation of philosophers from Western and Eastern European countries. It has also actively supported publishing and translation activities. In particular, I am referring to the Contemporary 14

The older generation consisted on the “philosophers of the Sixties”—Myroslav Popovyč, Sergij Kryms’kyj (1930–2010), Viktor Malakhov, Vasyl Lisovyj, Vitalij Tabačkovs’kyj, and Valeria Ničyk (1928–2002). The middle generation also consists of the current director of the Institute of Philosophy, Anatolij Jermolenko, Anatolij Loj, and Irina Dobronravova, among others.

304 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Humanitarian Library project (headed by Sergij Proleev) aiming to translate and publish works by the modern Western philosophers. As a result of this project, Ukrainian translations of the texts by Jürgen Habermas, Slavoj Zizek, Karl-Otto Apel, Simon Critschley, Klaus von Beyme, Max Horkheimer, and many others have been published. The UPF still exists, but due to the funding problems its activity has considerably decreased in the recent times: the Foundation does not organize international summer schools anymore, while its translation program has been practically curtailed. The philosophical societies, however, continue with the active work. They can be divided into two categories: those restoring the existed philosophical associations and the new ones. Thus, the Lviv Philosophical Society named after Kazimierz Twardowski, established in 2016, claims to continue the traditions of the Polish Philosophical Society in Lviv, which ceased to exist in 1939. And the aims of the Society of Russian Philosophy are close to the Kyiv Religious and Philosophical Society and the Kyiv Scientific Philosophical Society that operated in the imperial times; their history is described in the book “The Kiev Philosophical Societies of the early 20th Century” (2021) by Natalia Filippenko (Filippenko 2021). As for the “new” societies, I shall single out three of them. Thanks to the activity of the Union of Modern Philosophy Researchers (or the Pascal Society, founded in 1999), for example, the Ukrainian edition of Pascal’s “Thoughts” was published under the editor’s guidance of Oleg Khoma, the Union’s chairman. Professor Khoma also wrote extensive notes and comments on Ukrainian translations of Descartes’ “Meditations” and Leibniz’ “Monadology.” And it is thanks to the Ukrainian Phenomenological Society (founded in 1998) that we can talk today about the development of phenomenological philosophy and philosophical hermeneutics in Ukraine. As a result of this society’s work, a number of monographs were written and published: “On the Origin of Philosophical Hermeneutics (W. Dilthey and E. Husserl)” (1992) and “The Phenomenological Concept of Edmund Husserl`s Philosophy” (2005) by Stepan Košarnyj (Košarnyj 1992;

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 305 Košarnyj 2005), “Philosophical Hermeneutics” (2006) and “Experience and Meaning” (2011) by Andrij Bohačev (Bohačev 2006; Bohačev 2011), as well as the dissertations “Intersubjectivity and Sociality” by Svetlana Shcherbak (Shcherbak 2004) and “The Concept of Experience in Transcendental Phenomenology” by Vakhtang Kebuladze (Kebuladze 2012). This society has also organized a series of conferences, and the translation of works written by the Western phenomenologists. The Kant Society in Ukraine (founded in 1998) is currently the most influential in terms of the content and scope of its activities. It organized the International Kantian conferences (1999–2008) and numerous seminars. Its work resulted with many publications, among which many Ukrainian translations of Kant’s texts, as well as research monographs, e.g. “The History of the Notion of Experience” (2007) by Mikhail Minakov (Minakov 2007) and “Kant’s Anthropology: Origins, Constellations, Models” (2015) by Victor Kozlovs’kyj (Kozlovs’kyj 2015). The Kantian studies remain one of several key areas of philosophical investigations in postSoviet Ukraine. It is also worth mentioning the Center for Practical Philosophy, a charitable organization founded in 1999. It has been closed some time ago, but in the first decade of the 2000s the activity of the Center was quite noticeable. It not only organized conferences, summer schools, and round tables, but, most importantly, it published the Practical Philosophy Journal and had a book publishing house focused on philosophical literature. The Center’s policy was to finance publication not of translations, but of the original books by Ukrainian philosophers. It was this publishing house that published the first monographs of those who could be called representatives of the young generation of Ukrainian philosophers, in particular Taras Liutyj, Mikhail Minakov, Maria Rogoža, Denys Kiryukhin, Jurij Melkov, and Denis Prokopov (1974–2014). But, by and large, the Center was out of time, which determined its gradual decline. The Ukrainian philosophers was too focused on the study of the Western philosophy and on translations, and the influence of any philosophical journal was

306 DENYS KIRYUKHIN measured by the presence of venerable European intellectuals among its authors, whereas the Center avoided all this.

Journals and Books Taras Vozniak (b. 1957), philosopher, scholar of culture, and translator, has founded the Ji Journal [Ї] in 1989, which played an important role in the intellectual life of the country in the 1990s– 2000s. The first issues of the journal contained literary and philosophical essays that undermined the Soviet culture’s foundations. Among the essays it published were the translated texts of Martin Heidegger, Karl Jaspers, Witold Gombrowicz, and Milan Kundera, as well the texts in cultural studies. These texts immediately marked the direction of the edition: the study of the phenomenon of Europe from the East European perspective, the rethinking of Ukrainian history and culture in the context of the East European history, the analysis of the Halician cultural phenomenon, and the development of liberal political discourse. The latter, however, was more and more in contradiction with the right-wing political narrative of many of the journal’s materials. Today, the influence of this journal on the intellectual life of the country has noticeably diminished. The Spirit and Literature Journal [Dukh i Litera], which was founded in 1997 by Kostiantyn Sigov (b. 1962), director of the eponymous publishing house and the Center for European Humanities Research (CUHR) at the NaUKMA, and Leonid Finberg (b. 1948), director of the CUHR East European Jewry Study at the NaUKMA, were in a more philosophical mood of the 1990s– early 2000s. The journal, which was quite influential at the time, published cultural and philosophical research, translations, essays, and articles by leading Ukrainian, Russian, and European intellectuals such as Myroslav Popovyč, Georges Nivat, Sergej Averincev, Viktor Malakhov, and Paul Ricœur. Over time, the publication of the journal stopped, but the publishing house, which printed both translations and works of Ukrainian philosophers, became involved in research activities and turned into the leading

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 307 publisher of intellectual literature in Ukraine, actually becoming a cultural and intellectual phenomenon in its own right. The Spirit and Literature publishing house and Konstiantyn Sigov developed a project at the intersection of philosophy and philology, which became one of the central endeavors in the Ukrainian humanities since independence. The project started with the translation of the four-volume “The European Dictionary of Philosophy. Lexicon of untranslatability,” which was edited by Barbara Cassin and written by international team of philosophers, including those from Ukraine. The Ukrainian version of the dictionary was published by the Spirit and Literature publishing house in 2009–2016) (Kassen 2006-2016). Moreover, the Ukrainian co-authors of the dictionary, who were gathered around the publishing house, wrote an additional, fifth volume, composed entirely of Ukrainian untranslatables, which allows us to explore the origin not only of European philosophical languages, which are described in its first four volumes, but also of the Ukrainian philosophical language. The publication of the dictionary was an important step in the work on the formation of the Ukrainian philosophical vocabulary. For many years philosophical translations were one of the main directions of philosophical process in Ukraine. This was manifested by two projects. The first project is the UPF’s “Contemporary Humanitarian Library” mentioned above. The second translation project—”Vernunft und Gesellschaft”—was organized by Anatolij Jermolenko. The project resulted with the Ukrainian publications of the works by Vittorio Hösle, Klaus Meyer-Abich, and Hans Jonas. Both projects were supported by the workshop of “The Laboratory of Scholarly Translation,” which for over decade brought together translators, philologists, and scholars in an effort to create Ukrainian vocabularies and disciplinary terminologies while translating the major scholarly works; thus the translations of the German and British philosophical body of texts served for the development of Ukrainian philosophical language. Academic philosophy journals, on the other hand, were for a long time, if not on the periphery of intellectual life, then at least in its “shadow” zone. The oldest of these journals, the Philosophska

308 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Dumka Journal, was founded in 1927 and was published by the KIP. In 1989–1997, when sociology commenced developing in Ukraine, it was called the Philosophical and Sociological Thought. However, after the Institute of Sociology was founded in Kyiv within the network of the National Academy of Sciences and after the Sociology: Theory, Methods, and Marketing Journal was established, the philosophical journal regained its former name. For a long time, the activity of the Philosophska Dumka Journal was limited to the publication of articles, the journal has lost its central positions in the intellectual life of Ukraine. The situation started changing in 2008, when the Philosophska Dumka Journal was reorganized: the journal’s editors were systematically holding workshops and roundtables, which were leading to the publication thematic issues with both Ukrainian and foreign philosophers writing for them. The Dumka’s special issues included: “Phenomenology Today,” “The Transformation of Philosophical Knowledge in Post-Soviet Ukraine,” “The Legacy of Max Weber,” “Modern Social Philosophy,” “The Unity of the World and Diversity of Cultures,” “Modern Political Philosophy,” “The Case of Martin Heidegger,” or issues devoted to philosophy in contemporary Georgia and Belarus. In other words, the Philosophska Dumka Journal turned into an intellectual platform, gradually regaining its central position in the philosophy’s life in Ukraine. The Union of Modern Philosophy Researchers has founded the historical-philosophical journal Sententiae with Professor Oleg Khoma as its editor-in-chief. The Sententiae Journal was one of several academic philosophical journals that emerged in the late 1990s — early 2000s, however almost all of them ceased to exist after a fairly short period of time. Meanwhile, the Sententiae Journal not only survived, but after over twenty years of its publication, became one of the leading philosophical journals in Ukraine. The journal focuses on the studies of medieval and modern philosophy, the German idealism, and the analytical tradition. As for the philosophical journals published by the universities, there are many of them. I shall name just two of such journals here: the Herald of the Shevchenko Kyiv National University.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 309 Philosophy [Visnyk…] that has been published since Soviet times,15 and the Scientific Notes. Philosophy and Religious Studies Journal [Naukovi Zapysky…] published by the NaUKMA since 1996. In these—and this kind of—journals the authors are usually from among the respective universities’ staff and students. Other philosophy departments also have their own journals, usually called the Heralds-Visnyky, which reflect the scholarly life of particular university groups. An exception of this is the Doksa Journal published by the Odessa National University. Most of the Doksa’s issues are thematic, so one can see the philosophical debate around the issues of “The German Phenomenological Tradition in Philosophy, Humanities, and Cultural Studies,” “Hermeneutics of Text and Hermeneutics of Destiny,” and/or “Memory and Identity.” As I mentioned earlier, the Ukrainian philosophical field is extremely fragmented. These fragments, though, are based not on some well-established philosophical schools or traditions, but rather on the closed philosophical communities (or some sort of micro-worlds) organized around some publishing houses, journals, and departments, within which interesting intellectual processes often take place. The good example can be seen on the studies in the history of Ukrainian philosophy, which began yet in Soviet times when Kopnin was the KIP director. After Ukraine gained its independence, these studies became an important part of the entire philosophical process in the country—and this area is extremely dynamic and heterogeneous today. As Sergij Yosypenko (b. 1966) pointed out, If in today’s Europe the histories of national philosophical traditions are understood as histories of scholarly currents or schools originating or developing in a particular country and/or histories of the presence of philosophy in educational, public, and cultural space, where continuity is obvious, then for the historians of Ukrainian philosophy, who do not want to limit themselves to studying separate episodes and try to write synthetic

15

The Visnyk journal has changed its name several times during its long history.

310 DENYS KIRYUKHIN or generalizing histories, the problem of continuity becomes an inexhaustible source of methodological innovation. (Yosypenko 2012: 42)

Thus, debates about continuity, the canon of Ukrainian philosophy, and its stages and core principles accompany these studies. I will mention here just several of these works: “The Renaissance humanism in Ukraine (Ideas of Renaissance humanism in Ukrainian philosophy of XV–early XVII centuries)” (2000) by Volodymyr Lytvynov (b. 1936) (Lytvynov 2000), “Toward the sources of Ukrainian modernity: Ukrainian early modern spiritual culture in the European context” (2008) by Sergij Yosypenko, and “Philosophia rationalis in Kyiv-Mohyla Academy” (2009) by Mykola Symčyc (Symčyč̌ 2009). The studies of the German Idealism were a long-term focus and a distinctive feature of the Kyiv Institute of Philosophy since Soviet times. This tradition has been preserved and continued after independence. In the first post-Soviet decades the interest in philosophy of Hegel, Kant, and Fichte was only growing. In 2003, Mikhail Bulatov (1936–2020), a representative of the older generation of Ukrainian philosophers, has published two volumes of his book “The German Classical Philosophy” (Volume 1: “Kant. Fichte. Schelling” (Bulatov 2003) and Volume 2: “Hegel. Feuerbach” (Bulatov 2006)). But such fundamental works were rather exceptional. The post-Soviet philosophical situation is more characterized by research into particular themes, as seen on the examples of the book “Kant’s Doctrine of the Faith of Reason” (2001) by Mikhail Minakov (Minakov 2001), the dissertation “J. G. Fichte’s Philosophy of History” (2002) by Volodymyr Prykhod’ko (Prykhod’ko 2002), and the book “Introduction to Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion: Philosophy as a Speculative Theology” (2009) by Denis Kiryukhin (Kiryukhin 2009). Also, there is a growing interest in German idealists who were not in the center of attention during Soviet times like, for example, Schelling (see: Terlecʹkyj 2021). Interestingly, there was some decrease of interest in Hegelian thought, while the attention to Kant’s ideas was only growing. This is partially connected with the work of the Kant

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 311 Society,16 but this also stems from the general orientation of postSoviet Ukrainian philosophy toward normativity. This latter circumstance is the reason why the political philosophy connected with critical analysis began to develop in independent Ukraine rather late. The grounds for political philosophy’s development in Ukraine were laid by the analytical approach in the works of philosophers back in the Soviet times. One of those Ukrainian philosophers was Vasyl Lisovyj who launched a large-scale project that published solid anthologies of political thought including “Liberalism” (2002), “Democracy” (2005), “Nationalism. Theories of Nation and Nationalism from Johann Fichte to Ernest Gellner” (2006), and “Conservatism. The Conservative Tradition of Political Thought from Edmund Burke to Margaret Thatcher” (2008). Another source of the political philosophy’s evolution was the studies in communicative practical philosophy. The latter line of investigations has already established the philosophical direction in post-Soviet Ukraine and has led to the publication of important works like “The Ethics of Responsibility and Social Human Being” (1994), “Social Ethics and Ecology” (2010), and “Discourse. Communication. Morality” (2021) by Anatolij Jermolenko (Jermolenko 1994; Jermolenko 2010; Jermolenko 2021), “Social Sciences and Social Progress” (2014) by Alexej Vedrov (Vedrov 2014), “The Global Justice: Controversy of Universalism and Particularism” (2016) by Artem Gergun (Gergun 2016).17 I should also point out to one remarkable fact connected to the development of political philosophy in Ukraine. As I stated above, studies in political philosophy began to appear in Ukraine only recently. However, many of Ukrainian philosophers write them in English and publish them abroad, in Europe and the United States. For example, Mikhail Minakov published monograph “Development and Dystopia” in Germany in 2018 (see: Minakov

16 17

I should note that there are societies of the students of Kant or Pascal, but there is no Hegel Society in Ukraine. The last two authors belong to the younger generation of Ukrainian philosophers.

312 DENYS KIRYUKHIN 2018), a collective monograph of Ukrainian philosophers edited by Denis Kiryukhin “Community and Tradition in Global Times” was published in the USA in 2021 (Kiryukhin 2021 (b)), and the dissertation “After Public Reason. Convivial Pluralism in a Liberal Democracy” was written by Victor Poletko (Poletko 2021) in English and defended at the Catholic University of Leuven in 2021. The case of political philosophy is indicative of the relationship between different philosophical generations in Ukraine, namely, that the older and the middle generations have much more in common than the middle and the young generations.18 The younger generation of Ukrainian philosophers, who have actively asserted themselves over the last decade, thinks and works also in philosophical areas, which have not been studied in Ukraine before. Consequently, the philosophers of this generation orient themselves not on the philosophical tradition stemming from the Soviet times, but on international schools and traditions. This can be seen in the works in political philosophy, e.g. in “The Fluid Ideologies. Ideas and Politics in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Europe” (2018) by Volodymyr Jermolenko (Jermolenko V. 2020), “Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe” (2020) by Minakov, and “The Discourses of Justice in Historical Context” (2021) by Kiryukhin (Kiryukhin 2021a). However, this can also be seen in the studies of the Eastern philosophy, the Islam thought, and the Christian theology, as well as in the unconventional studies of traditional philosophical themes. Thus, Anastasia Strelkova translated and analyzed the Buddhist sutras in her monograph “The Buddhism: Philosophy of Emptiness” (2015) (Strelkova 2015). Oleg Jaroš explored the European Islamic social and political movements in his book “Islam in the Public Sphere: Theories and Public Practices” (2020) (Jaroš 2020). The books “Nihilism: Anatomy of Nothingness” (2002), “The Adventures of 18

Of course, there are cases of continuity between these generations as well. For example, there is a continuity in ethics: the book “Social Morality: Collisions of Minimalism” (2009) was written by the younger generation philosopher Maria Rogoža (Rogoža 2009) under the influence of Tetiana Abolina. Same intergenerational contiguity can be seen in the texts in communicative practical philosophy, which I described earlier.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 313 Philosophical Ideas of the Western World” (2019), and “The Culture of Charm and Resistance” (2020) by Taras Liutyj (Liutyj 2002; Liutyj 2019; Liutyj 2020) have attracted not only specialists to the reading of philosophical works, but also much wider readership. The Ukrainian neo-Thomism, whose revival was actively promoted by the Ukrainian Catholic University and the St. Thomas Aquinas Institute of Religious Sciences, once can find in the books “At the Origin of Thinking and Being” (2012) and “Thomas Aquinas: An Introduction to Thinking” (2012) by Andrej Baumeister (Baumeister 2012a; Baumeister 2012b). Whereas the Jurij Čornomorec’ monograph “The Byzantine Neo-Platonism from Dionysius the Areopagite to Gennadius Scholarius”(2010) (Čornomorec’ 2010) turned out to be a notable event in the Christian Orthodox theology. I should notice, however, that with these works the achievements in the field of Neo-Thomism and theology are, in fact, exhausted. In many ways, the phenomenon of public philosophy is also connected with the younger generation of Ukrainian philosophers. In the 1990s, many informal philosophical clubs around Ukraine attracted many amateurs and those interested in philosophical debate. But they did not grow in number or in their audiences, and later they turned into closed clubs for “members only” until they were ceasing to exist. But in the second half of the 2010s, a clear demand for philosophy has been reborn in Ukraine. On one hand, the number of university courses in philosophy for nonphilosophical specialties—and often the quality of these courses— has considerably decreased. And then, the courses in philosophy were canceled at all in the Ukrainian universities. On the other hand, the complexity of social and political life was increasing which created higher demand for orientation and meanings that only the philosophy can provide with. Thus, a wide audience for philosophical debate and thinking has appeared in Ukraine. This audience consists of young professionals who feel the need in philosophical knowledge, but have not been able to acquire it during their university studies—at the educational institutions that usually remain very conservative in their curricula. As a result, many public platforms have sprung up in Ukraine, where

314 DENYS KIRYUKHIN philosophers have begun to give lecture courses. To a large extent, these public lectures do not so much serve as a source of the philosophical knowledge, but also to preach the worldviews. This is a new and rather unexpected turn.

Conclusion The post-Soviet philosophy, Ukrainian philosophy, philosophy in Ukraine... What kind of philosophy are we talking about in relation to the Ukrainian philosophical condition? As one can see from my report, there is no ground to affirm that the Ukrainian post-Soviet philosophy is a one integrated phenomenon. Over the years of independence, philosophy in Ukraine has done a rather painstaking and complicated labor, in the course of which it has shaped its attitude towards its Marxist heritage. This work has resulted in the understanding that the philosophy of independent Ukraine is a continuation of the “neoorthodox” and dissident movements that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s in the Soviet Union. By contrasting the neo-Marxism and the Marxism-Leninism, Ukrainian philosophers for the most part did not condemn the Marx’s legacy, but they did not develop it either. The neo-Marxist initiatives and thoughts that exist today in Ukraine, such as those published in the Spilne/Commons Journal,19 emerge and develop outside the academic philosophical environment. And the project of “The Oral History of Philosophy,” undertaken by a group of young philosophers to study the philosophical process during Soviet times, aims to satisfy the archaeological interest of those who never lived in the Soviet Union, rather than to actualize the heritage of the Soviet philosophy in contemporary thought. Nor has the dialectical-worldview tradition commonly referred to as the Kyiv school of philosophy been further developed. It meant a lot for the philosophers of the Sixties; many philosophers of the middle generation refer to its experience; however, the new generation of philosophers is already defining itself within the framework of other schools and traditions. 19

See: the Spilne/Commons Journal, https://commons.com.ua/en/.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 315 For the younger generation of philosophers, the communication with their colleagues from other post-Soviet countries are almost devoid of meaning. For some time after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow remained the center of attraction for philosophers of the newly independent states by inertia, but gradually these ties weakened. The 2014 year was a turning point after which it became impossible for Ukrainian institutions to maintain official academic relations with their Russian counterparts. But, frankly speaking, this rupture had little effect on the philosophical process in Ukraine, which was already oriented toward developing relations with the Western philosophical centers. There is also some demand for an intellectual dialogue “inside’ the space of the states that were part of the communist bloc and share post-communist experience. In particular, Ukrainian philosophers responded to this demand by joining the liberal-oriented Koine Community,20 a platform for dialogue between the East European intellectuals. In 2021, the community founded the Kοινὴ Almanac that offers an opportunity to publish philosophical reflections and promotes the genre of the philosophical essay, for which there is virtually no place in sciencemetric academic journals. But the question of whether one should describe our philosophical process in the recent thirty years as the Ukrainian philosophy or as philosophy in Ukraine is still unresolved. In my opinion, currently, there are two philosophies: the one connected with the national idea, which can be named as the Ukrainian philosophy, and the other one, which is not connected with it and can be called as philosophy in Ukraine. The gradual convergence of these two tendencies is likely to take place over the coming years, aided in no small measure by the many years of work on the development of the Ukrainian philosophical language and terminology. As for the demand for philosophy that has recently arisen in the Ukrainian society, it rather disappoints me than inspires. After all, this demand is not for critical the reflection, which may actually enable the development of philosophy in Ukraine, but for the ready-made meanings and truths. With the growing demand from 20

See: the Koine Community, https://www.koine.community/.

316 DENYS KIRYUKHIN the side of government for the ideological legitimization of their policies, and the readiness of some part of the philosophical community to respond to this demand, the risk of a return to the Soviet model of philosophical process’ organization is high and is only growing.

Bibliography Althusser, L. (2005). For Marx. Transl. by Ben Brewster. London: Verso. Arendt, H. (1990). Philosophy and Politics. Social Research 57 (1): 73-103. Baumeister, A. (2012a). Bilya dzherel myslennya i buttya [from Ukr.: At the Origin of Thinking and Being]. Kyiv: Dukh i litera, Instytut Relihiynykh Nauk sv. Tomy Akvins’koho. Baumeister, A. (2012b). Toma Akvins’kyy: vstup do myslennya [from Ukr.: Thomas Aquinas: An Introduction to Thinking]. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. Bocheński, J. M. (1967). Why Studies in Soviet Philosophy? In Philosophy in the Soviet Union. A Survey of the Mid-Sixties. In Laszlo, E. (ed.). Dordrech: D. Reidel Publishing Company: 1-13. Bohačov, A. (2006). Filosofs’ka hermenevtyka [from Ukr.: Philosophical Hermeneutics]. Kyiv, Kurs. Bohačov, A. (2011). Dosvid i sens [from Ukr.: Experience and Meaning]. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. Bojčenko, I. (2013). Filosofiya nezalezhnoyi Ukrayiny: vytoky, napryamy, predstavnyky [from Ukr.: Philosophy of independent Ukraine: origins, directions, representatives]. Kyiv: Promin’. Bojčenko, M. (2015). Naukovi shkoly v suchasniy vitchyznyaniy filosofiyi [from Ukr.: The scientific schools in the modern Ukrainian philosophy]. Filosofs’ka dumka 3: 46–61. Bulatov, M. (2003). Nemeckaâ klassičeskaâ filosofiâ. Častʹ I. Kant. Fihte. Šelling [from Rus.: The German Classical Philosophy: Volume 1: Kant. Fichte. Schelling]. Kiev: Stilos. Bulatov, M. (2006). Nemeckaâ klassičeskaâ filosofiâ. Častʹ II. Gegelʹ. Fejerbah [from Rus.: The German Classical Philosophy: Volume 1: Hegel. Feuerbach]. Kiev: Stilos. Cassin, B. (ed.). (2009-2016). Yevropeys’kyy slovnyk filosofiy: Leksykon neperekladnostey [from Ukr.: The European Dictionary of Philosophy. Lexicon of untranslatability]. Vol. 1-4. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 317 Čornomorec’, J. (2010). Vizantiys’kyy neoplatonizm vid Dionisiya Areopahita do Hennadiya Skholariya [from Ukr.: The Byzantine Neo-Platonism from Dionysius the Areopagite to Gennadius Scholarius]. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. Dmitriev, A. (2010). Mertvaja voda, sovetskie mysliteli i gamburgskyj sčet [from Rus.: Dead Water, Soviet thinkers and the honest rating]. Idei i idealy 4(6): 20–23. Filippenko, N. (2021). Kievskie filosofskie obŝestva načala XX veka [from Rus.: The Kiev Philosophical Societies of the early 20th Century]. Moskva: Modest Kolerov. Gergun, A. (2016). Hlobal’na spravedlyvist’: kontroverza universalizmu ta partykulyaryzmu [from Ukr.: The Global Justice: Controversy of Universalism and Particularism]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Hnatyuk, O. (2005). Proshchannya z imperiyeyu. Ukrayins’ki dyskusiyi pro identychnist’ [from Ukr.: Farewell to the Empire. Ukrainian discussions about identity]. Kyiv: Krytyka. Hors’kyj, V. (1997). Istoriya ukrayins’koyi filosofiyi: kurs lektsiy [from Ukr.: The History of Ukrainian Philosophy. Course of Lectures]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Hrabovs’kyj, S. (2014). Vidrodzhennya ukrayins’koyi filosofiyi v URSR (1960-1980 rr.) [from Ukr.: The revival of Ukrainian philosophy in the Ukrainian SSR (1960-1980)]. In Tertium non datur. Problema kul’turnoyi identychnosti v literaturno-filosofs’komu dyskursi XIX-XXI st., Morenets’b, Volodymyr (red.). Kyiv: Vyd. NaUKMA: 326–365. Jaroš, O. (2020). Islam u publichniy sferi: teoriyi ta suspil’ni praktyky [from Ukr.: Islam in the Public Sphere: Theories and Public Practices]. Kyiv. Jermolenko, A., Turčinovsʹkyj, V., Fadêêv, V., Vêdrov, O., Ivaŝenko, I., Cyba, V. (2019). Filosofiâ v Ukraïni: u vičnomu pošuku sebe [from Ukr.: Philosophy in Ukraine: in the eternal search for yourself]. Ukraïna moderna 26: 23-30. Jermolenko, A. (1994). Ètika otvetstvennosti i socialʹnoe bytie čeloveka: sovremennaâ nemeckaâ praktičeskaâ filosofiâ [from Rus.: The Ethics of Responsibility and Social Human Being]. Kiev: Naukova dumka. Jermolenko, A. (1999). Komunikatyvna praktychna filosofiya [from Ukr: Communicative Practical Philosophy]. Kyiv: Libra. Jermolenko, A. (2003). Piznij marksizm — filosofiâ ciničnogo rozumu [from Ukr.: The Late Marxism is the philosophy of the cynical mind]. In Piznij radânsʹkyj marksizm ta sʹogodennâ (Do 70-riččâ Vadima Ivanova). Filosofsʹko-antropologični studiï’ 2003. Kyiv: Stilos: 131–142. Jermolenko, A. (2010). Sotsial’na etyka ta ekolohiya [from Ukr.: Social Ethics and Ecology]. Kyiv: Libra.

318 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Jermolenko, A. (2016). Filosofiâ Vasilâ Lisovogo u konteksti sučasnih filosofsʹkih doslidženʹ [from Ukr.: Philosophy of Vasyl Lisovyi in the context of current philosophic studies]. Filosofsʹka dumka 6: 87–98. Jermolenko, A. (2021). Dyskurs. Komunikatsiya. Moral’nist’ [from Ukr.: Discourse. Communication. Morality]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka. Jermolenko, V. (2020). Plynni ideolohiyi. Ideyi ta polityka v Jevropi XIX –XX stolit’ [from Ukr.: The Fluid Ideologies. Ideas and Politics in Nineteenth- and Twentieth-Century Europe]. Kyiv: Dukh i Litera. Jolon, P. (2017). Znakova rolʹ Pavla Kopnіna v perelomnyj perіod dіâlʹnostі Іnstitutu fіlosofії (stattâ druga) [from Ukr.: Symbolic Role of Pavlo Kopnin in the Critical Period of Activities of the Institute of Philosophy (Article 2)]. Fіlosofsʹka dumka 1: 42–56. Kamenka, E. (1963). Philosophy in the Soviet Union. Philosophy 38(143): 1–19. Karivec, I. (1999). V Ukraine prodolžaet gospodstvovatʹ marksizmleninizm [from Rus. Marxism-Leninism continues to dominate in Ukraine]. Denʹ, 177, https://day.kyiv.ua/ru/article/pochtadnya/v-ukraine-prodolzhaet-gospodstvovat-marksizm-leninizm (accessed November 27, 2021). Kebuladze, V., Bogačov, A., Kirizvas, M., Komarov, O., Morenecʹ, V., Oksenûk, V., Oksenûk, R., Prepotensʹka, M., Prolêêv, S., Šubčuk, M. (2017). Filosofiâ u publičnomu prostori: Miž akademičnistû j populârnistû [from Ukr.: Philosophy in the Public Space: Between Academicity and Popularity]. Filosofsʹka dumka 1: 6–27. Kebuladze, V. (2012). Kontseptsiya dosvidu v transtsendental’niy fenomenolohiyi [from Ukr.: The Concept of Experience in Transcendental Phenomenology]. Doctoral dissertation, Kyivs’kyj natsional’nyj un-t im. Tarasa Ševčenka. Kiryukhin, D. (ed.). (2021b). Community and Tradition in Global Times. Washington, DC: CRVP. Kiryukhin, D. (2009). Vstup do filosofiyi relihiyi Hehelya. Filosofiya yak spekulyatyvna telohiya [from Ukr.: Introduction to Hegel’s Philosophy of Religion: Philosophy as a Speculative Theology]. Kyiv: PARAPAN. Kiryukhin, D. (2021a). Dyskursy spravedlyvosti v istorychnomu konteksti [from Ukr.: The Discourses of Justice in Historical Context]. Kyiv: Stylos. Košarnyj, S. (1992). Bilya dzherel filosofs’koyi hermenevtyky (V. Dil’tey ta E. Husserl’) [from Ukr.: Towards the Sources of Philosophical Hermeneutics]. Kyiv: Nauka. Košarnyj, S. (2005). Fenomenolohichna kontseptsiya filosofiyi E. Huserlya [from Ukr.: The Phenomenological Concept of Edmund Husserl`s Philosophy]. Kyiv: Ukrayins’kyj centr dukhovnoyi kul’tury.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 319 Kozlovs’kyj, V. (2015). Kantova antropolohiya: dzherela, konstelyatsiyi, modeli [from Ukr.: Kant’s Anthropology: Origins, Constellations, Models]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyy dim “Kyjevo-Mohylyans’ka akademija”. Lisovyj, V. (2007). Ukraïnsʹka filosofsʹka dumka 60–80-h rokiv (stattâ perša) [from Ukr.: Ukrainian philosophical thought of the 60s-80s (Article 1)]. Filosofsʹka dumka, 3: 64-81. Liutyj, T. (2002). Nihilizm: anatomiya Nishcho [from Ukr.: Nihilism: Anatomy of Nothingness]. Kyiv: PARAPAN. Liutyj, T. (2019). Pryhody filosofs’kykh idey Zakhidnoho svitu [from Ukr.: The Adventures of Philosophical Ideas of the Western World]. Kyiv: Tempora. Liutyj, T. (2020). Kul’tura prynad i sprotyvu [from Ukr.: The Culture of Charm and Resistance]. Kyiv: Tempora. Loj, A., Davidenko, I., Mirošnik, K., Popilʹ, D. (2021). Rozum za «zaliznoû zavisoû»: ukraïnsʹka filosofiâ piznʹogo SRSR ta svitova nauka [from Ukr.: The Mind behind the Iron Curtain: Ukrainian philosophy of the late USSR and world science]. Sententiae 40(2): 161–183. Loj, A. (2003). Filosofiâ ta svitoglâd u piznʹomu marksizmi [from Ukr.: Philosophy and worldview in Late Marxism]. In Piznij radânsʹkyj marksizm ta sʹogodennâ (Do 70-riččâ Vadima Ivanova). Filosofsʹkoantropologični studiï’ 2003. Kyiv: Stilos: 103–131. Lytvynov, V. (2000). Renesansnyy humanizm v Ukrayini (Ideyi humanizmu epokhy Vidrodzhennya v Ukrayins’kiy filosofiyi XV–pochatku XVII st.) [from Ukr.: The Renaissance humanism in Ukraine (Ideas of Renaissance humanism in Ukrainian philosophy of XV–early XVII centuries)]. Kyiv: Osnovy. Malakhov, V. (2001). Etyka: kurs lektsiy [from Ukr.: Ethics. Course of Lectures]. Kyiv: Lybid’. Melkov, J. (2014). Čelovekomernostʹ postneklassičeskoj nauki [from Rus.: Human-Dimensionality of Postclassical science]. Kiev: Izdatelʹ PARAPAN. Menžulin, V. (2015). Istoriâ filosofii kak filosofiâ [from Rus.: The history of philosophy as a philosophy]. In Politiki znaniâ i naučnye soobŝestva, Kebuladze, V. (red.). Vilʹnûs: Evropejskij gumanitarnyj universitet: 119–172. Minakov, M. (2001). Vchennya Kanta pro viru rozumu [from Ukr.: Kant’s Doctrine of the Faith of Reason]. Kyiv: PARAPAN. Minakov, M. (2007). Istoriya ponyattya dosvidu [from Ukr.: The History of the Notion of Experience]. Kyiv: PARAPAN.

320 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Minakov, M. (2014). Transformacii filosofskogo obrazovaniâ v Ukraine v konce ХХ v. (1986–1995 gg.) [from Rus.: The transformations of philosophical education in Ukraine at the end of the twentieth century (1986-1995)]. Forum novejšej vostočnoevropejskoj istorii i kulʹtury 2: 355–417. Minakov, M. (2018). Development and Dystopia. Studies in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Stuttgart: Ibidem-Verlag. Minakov, M. (2020). Dialektika sovremennosti v Vostočnoj Evrope [from Rus.: Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe]. Kiev: Laurus. Myhalʹčenko, M. (2004). Ukraïna âk nova istorična realʹnistʹ: zapasnyj gravecʹ Êvropi [from Ukr.: Ukraine as a new historical reality: the reserve player of Europe]. Drogobič: VF Vidrodžennâ. Poletko, V. (2021). After Public Reason. Convivial Pluralism in a Liberal Democracy. Doctoral dissertation. Leuven Catholic University. Popovyč, M. (1998). Narys istoriyi kul’tury Ukrayiny [from Ukr.: Essay on the History of Culture of Ukraine]. Kyiv: ArtEk. Popovyč, M. (2007). Chervone stolittya [from Ukr.: The Red Century]. Kyiv: ArtEk. Prykhod’ko, V. (2002). Filosofiya istoriyi Y.H. Fikhte [from Ukr.: J. G. Fichte’s Philosophy of History]. Candidate dissertation, Kyivs’kyj natsional’nyy un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Kelly, E. (ed.). Cambridge, London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Rogoža, M. (2009). Sotsial’na moral’: koliziyi minimalizmu [from Ukr.: Social Morality: Collisions of Minimalism]. Kyiv: PARAPAN. Shcherbak, S. (2004). Intersub’yektyvnist’ i sotsial’nist’ [from Ukr.: Intersubjectivity and Sociality]. Candidate dissertation, Kyivs’kyy natsional’nyy un-t im. Tarasa Shevchenka. Šeremeta, O. (2013). Radânsʹki doslidžennâ filosofsʹkoï dumki Ukraïni: ideologičnyj ta administrativnyj kontekst doslidnicʹkih strategij [from Ukr.: Soviet investigations of the philosophic thought of Ukraine: ideological and administrative context of research strategies]. Filosofsʹka dumka 1: 90–102. Ševčuk, D. (2012). Sučasna politična filosofiâ. Navčalʹnyj posibnik [from Ukr.: Modern political philosophy: the textbook]. Ostrog: Vidavnictvo Nacionalʹnogo universitetu «Ostrozʹka akademiâ». Strelkova, A. (2015). Buddyzm. Filosofiya porozhnechi [from Ukr.: The Buddhism: Philosophy of Emptiness]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyy dim “Kyyevo-Mohylyans’ka akademiya”.

PHILOSOPHICAL PROCESS IN POST-SOVIET UKRAINE 321 Symčyč, M. (2009). Philosophia rationalis u Kyjevo-Mohylyans’kiy akademiyi [from Ukr.: Philosophia rationalis in Kyiv-Mohyla Academy]. Vinnytsya, O.Vlasyuk. Šynkaruk, V. (2003–2004). Vybrani tvory: U 3-kh t. [from Ukr.: Selected Works: In 3 vol.]. Kyiv: Ukrayins’kyy tsentr dukhovnoyi kul’tury. Tabačkovsʹkyj, V. (2002). U pošukah nevtračenogo času (Narisi pro tvorču spadŝinu ukraïnsʹkih filosofiv-šestidesâtnikiv) [from Ukr.: In search of unlost time (Essays on the creative heritage of Ukrainian philosophers of the Sixties)]. Kyiv: Vidavecʹ PARAPAN. Terlecʹkyj, V. (2021). Doslidžennâ nimecʹkoï klasičnoï filosofiï v Instituti filosofiï [from Ukr.: Research of German classical philosophy at the Institute of Philosophy]. Filosofsʹka dumka, 4:38–54. Tur, M. (2006). Neklasični modeli legitimaciï socialʹnih institutiv [from Ukr: The Non-classical models of social institutions’ ligitimizaon]. Kyiv: Vidavecʹ PARAPAN. Vedrov, O. (2014). Nauky pro suspil’stvo ta sotsial’nyy prohres [from Ukr.: Social Sciences and Social Progress]. Kyiv: Stylos. Yasna, I., Bekêškina, I., Verstûk, V., Jermolenko, A., Žabotynsʹka, S., Kebuladze, V., Popovyč, M., Prolêêv, S., Sigov, O., Skurativsʹkyj, V., Trač, N. (2016). Diskurs Revolûciï Gidnosti: zmist, struktura, metodologiâ doslidžennâ [from Ukr.: Discourse of the Revolution of Dignity: соntent, structure, research methodology]. Filosofsʹka dumka 4: 6–57. Yosypenko, S. (2012). Istoriâ filosofii Ukrainy v 1950–2000 godah: koncepcii, polâ naučnogo issledovaniâ, issledovatelʹskie praktiki [from Rus.: The history of philosophy of Ukraine in 1950-2000: concepts, areas of scientific research, research practices]. In Dovgirdovskie čteniâ II: filosofskaâ klassika i sovremennye problemy sociokulʹturnogo razvitiâ: materialy meždunarodnoj naučnoj konferencii, g. Minsk, 11 noâbrâ 2011 g. Minsk: Pravo i èkonomika: 35–42. Yosypenko, S. (2008). Do vytokiv ukrayins’koyi modernosti: ukrayins’ka rann’omoderna dukhovna kul’tura v yevropeys’komu konteksti [from Ukr.: Toward the sources of Ukrainian modernity: Ukrainian early modern spiritual culture in the European context]. Kyiv: Ukrayins’kyy Tsentr dukhovnoyi kul’tury. Yosypenko, S. (2019). Istoriâ filosofiï ta problema vnutrišnʹoï tâglosti nacionalʹnoï filosofiï [from Ukr.: The history of philosophy and the problem of the internal duration of national philosophy]. Ukraïna moderna 26: 31-49. Zabužko, O. (1993). Filosofiya ukrayins’koyi ideyi ta yevropeys’kyy kontekst [from Ukr.: Philosophy of the Ukrainian Idea and the European Context]. Kyiv: Osnovy.

322 DENYS KIRYUKHIN Zagorodnjuk, V. (2003). Piznij radânsʹkyj marksizm ta postmodernism [from Ukr.: Late Soviet Marxism and Postmodernism]. In Piznij radânsʹkyj marksizm ta sʹogodennâ (Do 70-riččâ Vadima Ivanova). Filosofsʹko-antropologični studiï’ 2003. Kyiv: Stilos: 157–171. Ždanov, A. (1952). Vystuplenie na diskussii po knige G. F. Aleksandrova «Istoriâ zapadnoevropejskoj filosofii» 24 iûnâ 1947 goda [from Rus.: Speech at the discussion on the book “History of Western European Philosophy” by G. Alexandrov on June 24, 1947]. Moskva: Gospolitizdat. Zlotina, M. (2008). Dialektika [from Rus.: Dialectic]. Kiev: PARAPAN.

9

Uzbekistan

Philosophy in Post-Soviet Uzbekistan Yevgeniy Abdullaev Most of the challenges the philosophic community in Uzbekistan faced after 1991 were common for other ex-Soviet republics: loss of the professional prestige, lack of funding, break of the academic ties within the former Soviet intellectual centers etc. Some challenges, however, were typical mainly to Uzbekistan and caused by the political regime that emerged in Uzbekistan in the 1990s (although some analogies could be found in other post-Soviet states). In this chapter I will review some of these challenges and their implications for the Uzbek philosophers1:    

Conservation of the Soviet-time institutional, methodological, and other practices, Inability to develop an independent, not state-controlled philosophy, Active involvement in formulation and propaganda of the state-sponsored ideology, and Intellectual autarchy and lagging behind the global philosophic trends.

This chapter will focus on philosophy as the form of academic philosophy incorporated in universities and research institutions. It will not cover the whole diversity of philosophic discourses that exist outside campuses and academic journals in Uzbekistan: in fiction, poetry, journalism etc. Analysis of these forms of

1

By “Uzbek philosophers” I mean philosophers living in Uzbekistan irrespectively to their ethnic background and their language, Uzbek or nonUzbek. This reservation, that may seem to be excessive in the English-language scholarship, is necessary because the Soviet-time reduction of national identity to ethnicity and/or language still prevails in Uzbek and Russian literatures.

323

324 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV “philosophy outside philosophy” exceeds the limits of this chapter and requires additional study.

Soviet Legacy: Muted but Vivid The Soviet-time Uzbek philosophy has been extremely seldom analyzed or discussed, both in the Soviet period2 and after 1991. Modern Uzbek philosophers avoid speaking about the Soviet period or limit themselves with several superficial, usually negative, characteristics. The blaming of the Soviet ideology is sometimes paradoxically combined with praising the philosophers (Erkin Jusupov, Dzalal Babajev etc.), which in fact were the most active proponents of this ideology (see Falsafa 2019: 31–32).3 This reluctance to study the Soviet-time philosophy is mainly caused by ideological reasons. President Karimov who ruled the country from 1990 until his death in 2016, conserved the late-Soviet type of the governance and tried to erase the memory of the Soviet period from the public discourse to avoid any “uncomfortable” comparisons.4 What is usually mentioned as a prehistory of the modern Uzbek philosophy is not that of the Soviet time, but an early medieval one. In fact, in the 9th–11th centuries the territory of Uzbekistan was a part of the philosophic revival across the Arabic Caliphate and its regional successor states. By the 20th century, however, local philosophy had completely lost the impetus of its early bloom, absorbed by theology and degraded into meticulous dogmatism. Sufi thinkers, representatives of the other intellectual trend of the pre-colonial Turkestan, preferred to express their

2

3 4

See e.g.: Jeu 1982 (it focused, however, not precisely Uzbekistan, but all Soviet Central Asian republics). As for the publications of the Uzbek philosophers of that time (e. g. Khairullaev 1967), they are purely descriptive, without any attempt of in-depth analysis. For a more moderate and compromise view on the Soviet period see e. g.: Erkaev 2001: 208. For instance, in early 2010s hundreds of Uzbek librarians and school teachers were ordered to cover up all the words like “the USSR,” “Soviet,” and the like in the books and textbooks printed in the Soviet times; otherwise those books would have been destroyed.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 325 philosophic views in poems and music rather than in a logically structured discourse. In this context, the Soviet philosophy, even encapsulated in Marxism-Leninism, was the first modern form of philosophy in Central Asia. It came with the introduction of the high school system and research institutions, as a separate academic discipline emancipated from theology (though not from ideology) and built in the framework of scientific knowledge. The process of rooting this philosophy in Uzbekistan was quite slow. In the developmental catch-up strategy that the Soviet rule imposed in Central Asia, the priority was given to natural sciences that should have brought the region closer to Russia economically, and to history and philology (mainly Russian), that should have brought it closer culturally. Philosophy, even in its ideologically laden form, was not on the top of this agenda. By 1954, there had been only one chair of philosophy in Uzbekistan, at the Tashkent State University (now the National University of Uzbekistan).5 The Philosophy Division was established within the History Department of the university only in 1963 and only (another “only”) in 1978 was transformed into the Philosophy and Economy Department.6 The Institute of Philosophy and Law under the Academy of Science was opened in 1958; for the comparison, similar institute was established in Belorussia in 1931, in Azerbaijan in 1945, and in Ukraine in 1946. Thus, philosophic community in Uzbekistan began to take its shape relatively late. By 1991, its institutional history had counted only three decades that was hardly enough for formation of a viable and active philosophic environment in the country. Among the Uzbek philosophers one could hardly find any personality whose influence transcended the boundaries of the 5

6

In the subsequent years, such chairs were opened at many high school institutions of the Uzbek Republic and in 1967 their number reached 26 (Khairullaev 1967: 13). It consisted of three divisions: Philosophy, Political Economy, and Psychology, added in 1989 with Sociology. After separation of Economy Division (that became Economy Department) in 1991, it was renamed into the Philosophy Department. Finally, in 2014 it got its current name, the Social Sciences Department.

326 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV local philosophic community.7 Ibragim Muminov, the first director of the Institute of Philosophy and Law, and Muzaffar Khairullaev, who occupied this position later, whose names are often mentioned in connection with the Uzbek philosophy of the Soviet period, were rather prominent science managers, than thinkers; their works represented typical mainstream Marxism-Leninism production of that time. Of course, local intellectuals (intelligentsia), mainly Russianspeaking, were affected by the growth of interest to philosophy that began since early 1960s and continued till the collapse of the Soviet Union. As elsewhere across the country, philosophic matters, especially related to social philosophy, were vividly discussed and philosophic texts, more or less free of Marxist dogmatism, were actively read. Still, in Uzbekistan there were no underground philosophic circles or seminars, or philosophic self-publishing (samizdat), similar to those existed then in the metropolis. The maturation of philosophy and its liberation from the dogmatic grip of the “the only true teaching” in Uzbekistan was also dumped by the influence of the above-mentioned dogmatic mode of teaching and thinking that had prevailed before the Soviet modernization. The former theological institutions were destroyed, but the skills of dogmatic thinking nourished by them were reinforced by the dogmatism of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy. The texts of the most Soviet Uzbek philosophers demonstrate even a higher level of non-critical thinking and secondariness than those of Moscow “court philosophers.” While the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of the metropolis imitated philosophy, the philosophy in Uzbekistan was doomed to be the “imitation of imitation.”8 Among the philosophic subjects, probably, only history of philosophy provided the scholars with an opportunity of less 7

8

Such as, e. g. Aleksander Makovel’skiJ in Azerbaijan, Merab Mamardašvili in Georgia, Karen Svas’jan in Armenia, Dzabaikhan Abdil’din in Kazakhstan, Aron Brudnyi in Kirgizstan, Anatolii Mikhailov in Belorussia, Solomon Lur’je in Ukraine etc. Nevertheless, works of some Soviet Uzbek philosophers (such as Kalerija Ivanova, Lev Garber, Valerii Chernik, Omonulla Faizullaev, Vladimir Nikitchenko etc.) were written at least at a good level of the philosophy of that time.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 327 ideological and more factual approach. Thanks to the efforts of Ibragim Muminov and Muzaffar Khairullaev, a green light was given to the studies of the “philosophy of the peoples of Central Asia.” This vague term implied the philosophic teachings of the famous medieval thinkers that lived on the territory of the modern Uzbekistan or nearby (Al-Farabi, Al-Biruni, Ibn-Sina etc.) or at least where somehow affiliated with it (like, e.g. an Indian poet and philosopher Bedil who supposedly had an Uzbek origin). Those studies were not ideologically immune; but the ideology that backed them was, at least, not Marxist. It was a special type of nationalism that was permitted, within some strict limits and with considerable reservations, for the local national elites of the Soviet republics in construction of cultural identities of their nations (see: Manova 2019). In Uzbekistan main role in these studies was plaid by a number of scholars at the Institute of Philosophy and Law and the Institute of Oriental Studies: Anatolij Kaziberdov, Roik Bakhadirov, Khakima Dzanmatova, Anvar Sharipov etc. They made significant progress in translation, mainly from Arabic into Russian, and analysis of medieval philosophic treatises. All those scholars were graduates of the Oriental Department of the Tashkent University and were not philosophers by their educational background. In spite of the strong need in historians of philosophy specializing in the “philosophy of the peoples of Central Asia,” Arabic, even in its basic form, was taught neither at the Philosophy Division, nor, later, at the Philosophy and Economy Department of the Tashkent University.9 At the end of 1980s and beginning of 1990s, the Soviet Uzbek philosophy (like the late-Soviet philosophy in general) experienced its climax. Ideological grips were weakened; the number of enrollees in the Philosophy Division of the Philosophy and Economy Department reached its peak; new opportunities for 9

Some progress has been made since that time. In 2000, the Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Languages introduced the specialization “Oriental philosophy.” The bachelor philosophy curriculum that has been recently approved by the Ministry of High and Secondary Education of Uzbekistan includes “Oriental languages (Arabic, Persian languages).”

328 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV getting acquaintance with the world philosophic trends, personalities, and centers emerged. Soon, however, the situation within and around philosophy changed dramatically and a new chapter of its history in Uzbekistan began.

Underfunded but Overcontrolled The 1990-s in Uzbekistan were marked by curtailing the liberal reforms, formation of the autocratic presidential system, and active but surficial de-Sovietization and de-Russification. It was added with a massive outflow of the Russian-speaking intellectuals that had formed a thin but important layer of a philosophically interested audience. Many philosophers, usually more talented and motivated, drifted from philosophy to sociology, political studies, and other demanded professions, or just left the academia at all; some philosophers emigrated from the country. In spite of sharp decrease of the state funding, the Uzbek philosophy remained fully dependent from the state. In contrast to Russia, Ukraine, and many other post-Soviet states, where numerous independent or semi-independent publishing, teaching, and research philosophic projects emerged, Uzbek philosophers did not demonstrate any attempt to play outside of the “playground” provided and controlled by the state. It can be explained by a Soviet-style censorship that revived already in the first years of Islam Karimov’s presidency (1990–1995, other terms continued until 2016); but it is just a part of the picture. More importantly, the government did not allow opening of private universities. Uzbek philosophers were deprived with the opportunity to join private high schools that usually provided higher salaries and better academic environment. They had to work at the universities, that government funded and controlled, with the funds decreasing, control tightening,10 and the whole system 10

For instance, the end of 1990s the teaching staff of the universities was ordered to have all lectures in a written form and stick to these texts during the classes; the rationale behind it was to prevent lecturers from digressing from the subjects of their lectures, especially into some political matters. For the same

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 329 contracting. 11 In general, it was part of the policy of president Karimov, who considered higher education and fundamental science (not providing quick political and economic benefits) as a sort of “white elephant.” This policy also affected the Institute of philosophy and law, whose activity reduced mainly to the accommodation of awarding of candidate and doctoral degrees in philosophy. In 1999 Abdulhafiz Dzalalov, then director of the Institute, announced opening of “a non-profit foundation called Mutafakkir (The Thinker)” for publication of the “ancient Turkic manuscripts containing philosophical thoughts” (Dzalalov 1999). But it was the only mentioning about this foundation and its fate was obscure. Another new institution established that time was the National society of Uzbek philosophers (O‘zbekiston faylasuflari milliy jamiyati12). The reason for establishing it was not clear, since it just duplicated the Philosophic Society of Uzbekistan (O‘zbekiston falsafa jamiyati), the successor of the Uzbek Division of the USSR Philosophic Society. The activities of the two twin-societies are difficult to evaluate: they have no official sites on the Internet, no publicity in the social networks etc. The National society of Uzbek philosophers has published a number of books, mainly textbooks, on the subjects (mathematics, agriculture, sport etc.) that are quite far from philosophy. In spite of some slight weakening of the state censorship and new publishing opportunities emerged with the spread of the Internet, no notable philosophic sites or social networking services appeared. In 2013, the National University started publishing the first academic journal in Uzbekistan which at least had the word “philosophy” in its title, “Falsafa va Huquq” (Philosophy and Law).

11

12

reason, the questionnaires disseminated among the students by universities’ administration contained a question, if some lecturers made any “political statements” in the classrooms. Whereas 15 percent of the youth of Uzbekistan studied in its institutions of higher education in 1990, that quotient had plunged to 5 percent by 1998; in other post-Soviet states this indicator increased—for example, to 28 percent in Russia and Ukraine, and 25 percent in Kyrgyzstan (Abdullaev 2005: 283). The words in Uzbek are written here and below according to the Romanized Uzbek alphabet introduced in 1993.

330 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV The number of the universities providing education in philosophy slightly increased. Along with the National University, it is also available at the Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Languages, the Samarkand State University and the Karakalpak State University in Nukus. On the other hand, in 2012 by the order of the Cabinet of Ministers the Institute of philosophy and law was closed.

Philosophy as Ancilla Ideologiae The first couple of years after gaining the state sovereignty, the political rhetoric in Uzbekistan echoed the perestroika-time disgust for ideology. For instance, Article 12 of the 1992 constitution contained the following declaration: The Republic of Uzbekistan develops on the basis of the diversity of political institutions, ideologies, and opinions. No ideology can be established as a state ideology.

Nevertheless, within a year president Karimov noted the need to create “the ideology of national independence,” which “should embody the opinion of all forces, movements, social organizations, various strata of the population of our society, their hopes and dreams” (Karimov 1993: 13). In 1999 the study of the works and public speeches of president Karimov became obligatory at all levels of education. Two years later the president designated, as one of the main goals of “the ideology of independence,” to fill “the vacuum that appeared after the repudiation of the old ideology in order to oppose actively the penetration of an alien ideology and destructive ideas” (Karimov 2001: 204). The “ideology of state independence” was introduced into the secondary and high school curricula and became a formal part of the state examinations and certification. A special exam on the works of president Karimov appeared in the list of degree exams (including those for getting degree in philosophy); his works also had to be mentioned in a research methodology section in degree theses.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 331 Like in the Soviet time, philosophy was supposed to become an integral part of this ideological machinery. It replicated the role of the Marxist-Leninist philosophy in the Soviet ideology, even in a more Kafkaesque way. Transformation of the former Soviet philosophic ideology—or ideological philosophy—into the orchestration of “the ideology of national independence” entailed some changes of its vocabulary. All Marxist concepts, especially those reflecting ideas of revolutionary changing of an unfair political order, were vigorously swept out. The main value in the new ideology was “political stability,”13 that gave to the “class struggle,” “revolutionary situation,” and other similar concepts that could potentially threaten the current state of affairs, no chance to survive. The cornerstone of the new philosophy-ideology became the concept of “spirituality” (Uzb. ma'naviyat, Rus. dukhovnost’) or the “spiritual culture” (ma'naviy madaniyat and dukhovnaya kul’tura, accordingly). Because of its clearly “idealistic” overtones, this concept occupied a marginal place in the Soviet philosophic vocabulary. It was rehabilitated and became topical during Perestroika with the sunset of the “materialistic” Marxism and beginning of the religious boom.14 It was actively conceptualized in the discussions on humanization of socialism led in the ideological and philosophic publications of that time (Simonov et al. 1989, Fedotova 1990). Thus the “spirituality” entered the lexicon of the Uzbek philosophy and after 1991 became one of the most frequent in it. While in Russian, Ukrainian, and many other post-Soviet philosophies this vague and obsolete concept occupies quite a marginal place, in Uzbekistan it perfectly fitted the conservative

13

14

R. Hanks noted: “The theme of stability has figured prominently in the rhetoric of the Uzbek regime since independence, representing a goal which transcends pluralization of the political environment” (Hanks 1999: 172) “Spirituality” was a common term both in the texts of the “returned” Russian religious philosophers that became philosophic bestsellers (especially by Nikolai Berdjaev) and in a massive religious, occultist and esoteric literature that flooded the book market.

332 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV character of the new ideology and its tendency to serve as a “secular theology.”15 The most active proponent of this term was Said Shermukhamedov. This talented administrator and ex-minister of public education was the head of the Chair of Philosophy at the Philosophy Department of the National University (1985–2002) and the chairperson of the Philosophic Society of Uzbekistan (1990– 2002). In fact, what he meant by the “spiritual culture” and “spiritual values” in his works fitted more the notion of ethics.16 However, these “spiritual” notions and the like soon turned into semi-sacral words immune to any critical reflection. The Chair of Philosophy of the Social Sciences Department of the NUU was renamed into the Chair of Philosophy and Basics of Spirituality (Falsafa va ma'naviyat asoslari);17 similar titles, with the unavoidable “spirituality”, were got by some chairs across the country.18 Another concept reflecting nearly verbatim “the ideology of national independence” was “the philosophy of independence.” If “spirituality”, at least has some philosophic pedigree, “the philosophy of independence” represents a purely rhetorical catchphrase. In some other authoritarian post-Soviet states (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc.), there also have been some attempts to formulate their local “philosophies of independence” (e. g. Mekhtijev 2001; Esim 2011). But only in Uzbekistan this “philosophy” became mandatory part of the philosophic education and research. What this “philosophy of independence” lacks is any degree of intellectual independence. It was just rephrasing of president 15

16

17 18

At the end of 1990s, when I taught at the Philosophy Department of the National University of Uzbekistan, some students called the newly introduced ideological subjects a “Karimovian theology” (karimovskaja teologija). See: Shermukhamedov 2000. In the beginning of 1960s Shermukhamedov was the head the Section of ethic and aesthetics in the Institute of philosophy and law. E. g., in 2008–2009 this chair implemented the state-financed project “The National Ideology and Philosophy.” E. g., the Chair of the National Idea, Basics of Spirituality and Legal Education (Milliy g’oya, ma’naviyat asoslari va huquq ta’limi) of the Gulistan State University; the Chair of the National Idea and Basics of Spirituality (Milliy g’oya va ma’naviyat asoslari ta’limi) of the Karshi State University etc.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 333 Karimov’s summa ideologiae into more or less philosophically sounded discourse. It emerged as the transformation of the most ideologically embedded and servile part of the former MarxistLeninist philosophy that served for the advocacy of the current political regime and justification of its actions. It does not look surprising, that many Uzbek philosophers consider their involvement in the same activity vis-à-vis the new regime as natural and even desirable for philosophy.19 Being “the architect” of “the ideology of national independence”, president Karimov, however, personally paid no interest either to philosophy or to philosophers. It was a secret of Polichinelle that all his numerous and verbose texts were written by a pool of speechwriters, which included philosophers as well. However, an involvement of the philosophers in formulation of the new ideology and in the political activity (even in the limited forms permissible by the authoritarian regime), pose some serious risks for them. Abdulhafiz Dzalalov, a graduate of Philosophy Division of History Department of the Tashkent State University, promisingly started his career at the Institute of Philosophy and Law and in 1976 defended the candidate thesis “Hegel and philosophic thought of the peoples of the Orient” (Dzalalov 1976). In 1980s, as he became a party functionary, he drifted from history of philosophy to political philosophy (surely, in its Marxist-Leninist form). By the time of the collapse of the Communist Party of Uzbekistan, he had occupied the position of the deputy head of the Party Ideological division. In 1991 the party was reincarnated into the People Democratic Party; a bit later Dzalalov was elected its first secretary. In 1993, he was appointed the director of the Institute of philosophy and law and thus became involved in transformation of the farmer philosophy/ideology into the new one. But in 2000, when he was the only alternative candidate to Karimov at the presidential

19

“In Uzbekistan, philosophers, on the basis of the conception and principles formulated by the Government already in the 1990-s, have made a significant contribution to formation and further development of the philosophy of independence…” (Dzabborov 2020).

334 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV elections, his career dramatically collapsed. In fact, he was appointed to this role behind the scenes by Karimov himself, who wanted some semblance of democracy at the elections. In spite of the fact that Karimov was successfully re-elected, he was not satisfied with the performance of his “competitor”; soon after the elections Dzalalov lost all his positions in the party and at the institute. Another gifted scholar, Rustam Dzumaev, also started his academic career as a philosopher (at the Philosophy Department of the Tashkent State University). In late 1990s, after he got a high position at the Academy of state and social building under the President of Uzbekistan,20 he became one of the most influential political scientists of the country; in 2001–2003 he was the head of the presidential press-service. Then he was suddenly dismissed by Karimov and turned into a pariah; unlike to Dzalalov, he was at least left in the staff of the Academy.21 Nevertheless, the most serious consequence of this reideologization of the Uzbek philosophy was neither the dangers for the philosophers too closely involved in the ideological and political matters, nor even the overloading of the university philosophic curricula with the ideological subjects. What seems to be more destructive for philosophy in this return to the role it played in the Soviet times was its growing autarchy and detachment from the world philosophy.22

20

21 22

The Academy is the training center for professional advancement for the Uzbek governmental officials of high and middle levels. In 2012 it was renamed into the Academy of public administration under the President of Uzbekistan. At the present, he is a professor of the Chair of the World Politics and International Relations of the Tashkent State Institute of Oriental Languages. It can be true if formulated vice versa, too: inability or unwillingness to continue the perestroika time catching up with the world philosophy and overtaking the knowledge of its main trends made the Uzbek philosophers (though not all of them) more inclined to perform less intellectually burdensome task of the philosophic maintenance of the state ideology.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 335

The “Canned” Philosophy In 1990s, as in the other post-Soviet states, the participation of Uzbek philosophers in any philosophic activities outside the country was hampered by the collapse of the former academic network and impoverishment of the academia. Academic libraries were not able to purchase philosophic literature from abroad or to subscribe to foreign philosophic periodicals; high travel prices did not allow Uzbek philosophers to visit foreign institutions, libraries, participate in the conferences etc. The old academic links were broken, the new did not have time to emerge. By the beginning of the 2000s, the situation had slightly changed for the better. After his first official visit to the US in summer 1996, president Karimov welcomed some US (and USbased) organization to open their branches in the country. As the Soviet educational project for Central Asia, the US “project” for the region also assigned to philosophy a secondary role (after economics, law, political sciences etc.). Nevertheless, some of those organizations, the Soros Foundation and the Fulbright Program, provided some advanced training opportunities for philosophers. For instance, the Soros Foundation organized some philosophic workshops, provided a scholarship for study philosophy at the Central European University, and, last but not least, donated to the Uzbek libraries numerous valuable and freshly printed books on philosophy. The impact of these activities on the Uzbek philosophic community, however, very limited. Already in 2004 the Soros Foundation was forced by the government to close its branch in the country. As for the Fulbright Visiting Scholar Program, only 2 Uzbek philosophers conducted research and teaching activities in the US universities under this Program (for the comparison, the Program has been participated by 7 political scientists, 7 historians, 9 philologists from Uzbekistan).23 23

According to the Fulbright Scholar Directory (https://fulbrightscholars. org/fulbright-scholar-directory). Philosophic study and research opportunities, surely, are not limited with Central European University or the Fulbright Program. Since the 2010s, some Russian universities began to provide

336 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV Another opportunity for getting access to the philosophic resources worldwide and integrating into the world philosophic community appeared with the spread of the Internet. It is difficult to evaluate, however, to what extent it has filled the gap between Uzbek thought and the world philosophy. As one can judge by the production of Uzbek philosophers (both in Uzbek and in Russian), most of the references are given to Russian and the Russianlanguage Internet philosophic resources, while references to those in other languages are much less common. The majority of Uzbek philosophers still have the low command in English and in other main philosophic languages, especially taking into account the complicated style the philosophic texts are usually written in. It can be also the reason, why no attempts to translate into Uzbek major philosophic texts of main philosophic traditions of the last century (phenomenology, hermeneutics, analytical philosophy etc.) and most influential texts of the current century have been made. But even the Russian philosophic texts available in Internet that are referred to by Uzbek philosophers often represent secondary sources (textbooks or compilations) or texts of a doubtful philosophic originality. Uzbek philosophy continues to reproduce Marxism-Leninism schemes, sometimes slightly garnished with some references to some nonMarxists philosophers of the twentieth century.24 This isolation from the world, mainly Western, philosophy was influenced by the anti-modernization character of the political regime25, and the fears of president Karimov that Western culture could have threatened the “spiritual immunity” of the country (see: March 2003: 213–214). It can be illustrated by the regime’s attitude

24 25

grants for Uzbek students for getting bachelor degrees; but the relevant statistic on philosophy is not available for me. See, for example, Erkaev (2006), where the numerous quotations from president Karimov’s writings are interspersed with those from Erich Fromm. “…Anti-modernization is appearing in all spheres of culture and economics. The re-traditionalization of social life, the de-professionalization of entire strata of the population, the anti-intellectualism emanating from above, the exodus of skilled personnel from the country—all these are clear signs of the antimodernization that characterizes the reality in post-Soviet Uzbekistan” (Rumer 2002).

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 337 to political sciences, in their post-Soviet form of politologija (Uzb. siyosatshunoslik). Since its emerging in Uzbekistan from the ruins of the “Scientific Communism,” politologija became closely involved in the formulation and dissemination of the new state ideology. But even in such simulacral form it looked too intellectually independent and “Westernized” for the regime. In fact, Uzbek political scientists were more active than philosophers and more integrated into the world scientific network. In 2013, the departments and chairs of politologija were closed and two years later, in 2015, politologija was removed from high school curricula. One of the reasons brought by the government was that this science was based mainly on the Western sources and did not reflect the “Uzbek model” and “specificity” of the country development (see Tolipov 2015). Only in 2019, after the change of political leadership of the country, it was re-introduced. Some Uzbek philosophers were quite active in participating in international conferences, training and research programs even in those unfavorable times,26 but the overwhelming majority remained fully absorbed by the domestic academic market that became more and more detached from the international one. Sometimes this detachment is recognized by Uzbek philosophers27 and other humanity scholars,28 but no serious break-through attempts were made. The requirement to publish articles in foreign academic periodicals induced enormous number of publications in

26

27

28

Such as Niginakhon Shermukhamedova (now the head of the Chair of Philosophy and Basics of Spirituality of the National University of Uzbekistan), Shakhnoza Madaeva (now the head of the Chair of History of Philosophy and Logic of the same university), Victoria Levinskaia (now a deputy rector of the TEAM University in Tashkent). “Unfortunately, isolation of the republic from the international philosophic community continues, the contacts with the scholars of the West, Eastern countries, as well as those of the CIS countries” (Izzetova, Pulatova 2012: 42). “Humanitarian sciences in Uzbekistan are still dominated by some pure positivism (inherited from the Soviet Marxism) and the Soviet nation-building paradigm” (Alimdzanov 2020: 114).

338 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV trash journals.29 The philosophy in the country remained, if to borrow the title of the famous article of Nikolai Plotnikov on the similar processes in the modern Russian philosophy, a “philosophy for internal use” (Plotnikov 2002).

Concluding Remarks Since 2016, after the death of president Karimov, the new president, Shavkat Mirzijoev, changed the governmental course for more liberal. The control over the higher education has been relaxed, more universities has been opened (including private ones) and the funding of the higher education, in general, has increased. The main ideological assemblage inherited from the previous regime still remains intact, but the works of Islam Karimov are not imposed any more, and his successor has wisely refrained from playing the role of an ideological oracle so far. Two new philosophic journals appeared simultaneously in 2020: “Markaziy Osiyo renessansi jurnali/Journal of Central Asian Renaissance” edited by Shakhnoza Madaeva and “Falsafa va Hayot/Filosofija i zhizn’/Philosophy and Life” edited by Niginakhon Shermukhamedova. Both are represented as international and publish articles in Uzbek, English, and Russian, of Uzbek and foreign authors as well. Although the content of the journals seems to be a bit eclectic (as collections of articles from different spheres of philosophy, without any problem-oriented themes and review section), they emergence was an important step forward, since no specialized journals had existed in the country before. However, the long wave of the previous policy still affects the Uzbek philosophy and will probably affect it for a long time. The opportunities to overcome the stagnation and isolation are low, for both domestic and international reasons. Domestically, the public

29

This practice is observed with the “foreign” publications in other, mainly humanitarian, sciences of Uzbekistan, as well. See discussion of this issue in: Khan 2022.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 339 interest to philosophy among Uzbek intellectuals is negligible.30 The international context also demonstrates the recession of academic activity due to pandemic situation and, currently, due to the Russian-Ukrainian war that marked the end of globalization and “the world without borders.” It is difficult to predict how these processes will influence the Uzbek philosophy. Will it be able to benefit from the more liberal environment in the country and to review and re-evaluate critically its vocabulary and methodology? Or its fortune is to shrink to the scholastic appendix to ideology (secular or religious), similar to that of the pre-modernization times? This list of the questions and suggestions could be continued, but I prefer to leave it open-ended. Philosophy begins with wonder, and some room for a wonder and unexpected turn should be left for Uzbek philosophy as well.

Bibliography Abdullaev, E. (2005). Uzbekistan: Between Traditionalism and Westernization. In: Central Asia at the End of Transition, ed. by B. Rumer. Armonk, NY; London, England: M.E. Sharpe, 267-294. Abdullaev, E. (2009). Filosof – mezhdu klerkom i klounom [from Rus.: A philosopher between a clerk and a clown]. Oktyabr’ 9: 141–149. Alimdzanov, B.A. (2020). Sushchestvuet li granitsa domodernogo, modernogo i postmodernogo znanija v Uzbekistane (na primere istoriografii trudov Al’-Beruni)? [from Rus.: Is there a border between pre-modern, modern, and post-modern scholarship in Uzbekistan (on the example of historiography of works of AlBeruni)]. Russian Colonial Studies, 2 (5): 113-128. Bakhadirov, R. (1983). Klassifikatsiya nauk Abu Abdallakha al-Khorezmi i eyo mesto v istorii nauchnoi mysli. [from Rus.: Classification of sciences by Abu Abdallah al-Khorezmi and its place in the history of scientific thought]. Candidate dissertation, The Institute of Philosophy and Law of Uzbekistan.

30

It can be interpreted as a part of a wider process of fading interest to philosophy in the postmodern world (see Abdullaev 2009).

340 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV Dzabborov, B. (2020). Perespektivy razvitia uzbekskoi filosofii. [from Rus.: Perspectives for development of the Uzbek philosophy]. Credo New, June 2, http://www.intelros.ru/readroom/credo_new/kr2-2020/41 813-perspektivy-razvitiya-uzbekskoy-filosofii.html (accessed July 11, 2022). Dzalalov, A. (1976). Gegel i filosofskaja mysl’ narodov Vostoka [from Rus.: Hegel and philosophic thought of the peoples of the Orient]. Candidate dissertation, The Institute of Philosophy and Law of Uzbekistan. Dzalalov, A. (1999). Philosophy in Uzbekistan. Philosophy Now: A magazine of ideas, 23, https://philosophynow.org/issues/23/Philosophy_in_ Uzbekistan (accessed July 11, 2022). Dzanmatova, Kh. (1971). Al-Kindi i ego filosofskie vzgliady. [from Rus.: AlKindi and his philosophic views]. Candidate dissertation, The Institute of Philosophy and Law of Uzbekistan. Erkaev, E. (2006). Dukhovnost’ – energija nezavisimosti. [from Rus.: Spirituality is the energy of independence]. Tashkent: Ma’naviyat. Esim, G. (2011). Filosofija nezavisimosti [from Rus.: Philosophy of independence]. Almaty: Bilim. Falsafa. O’quv-uslubiy majmua. (2019). [from Uzb.: Philosophy. Study programme] Ijtimoiy fanlar kafedrasi, Tashkent Moliya Instituti. Tashkent. Fedotova, V.G., ed. (1990) Chelovek i dukhovnost’: sbornik statei. [from Russ.: A human being and spirituality: Collection of articles]. Riga: Znanie. Hanks, R. (1999) Civil Society and Identity in Uzbekistan: The Emergent Role of Islam, in Civil Society in Central Asia, ed. M. Holt Ruffin and D. Waugh. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 158-179. Izzetova, E., Pulatova, D. eds. (2012). Filosofija. [from Rus.: Philosophy. ]. Tashkent: Sharqshunoslik. Jeu, B. (1982) Philosophy of the Caucasus and of Central Asia in the Soviet period. Studies in Soviet Thought 23: 285–299. Karimov, I. (1993). Pravovaia garantiia nashego velikogo budushchego. [from Rus.: Legal guarantees of our future]. Tashkent: Sharq. Karimov, I. (2001). Predislovie k rabote, “Ideia natsional’noi nezavisimosti: osnovnye poniatiia i printsipy” [from Rus.: Foreword to the book “Idea of the national independence: main concepts and principles”] In: Za protsvetanie Rodiny—kazhdyi iz nas v otvete, vol. 9. Tashkent: O’zbekiston, 201-205.

PHILOSOPHY IN POST-SOVIET UZBEKISTAN 341 Kaziberdov, A.L. (1982). Uchenie Farabi o edinstve bytiya: (Po maloizvestnym traktatam). [from Rus.: Farabi’s teaching on the unity of the being]. Candidate dissertation, The Institute of Philosophy and Law of Uzbekistan. Kaziberdov, A.L., Mutalibov, S.A. (1986). Abu Nasr al-Farabi. Issledovaniya i perevody. [from Rus.: Abu Nasr al-Farabi. Studies and translations]. Tashkent: Izdatel’stvo “Fan” Uzbekskoi SSR. Khairullaev, M. (1967). Nekotorye itogi razvitija filosofii v sovetskom Uzbekistane. [from Russ.: Some results of the development of philosophy in the Soviet Uzbekistan]. Obshchestvennye nauki v Uzbekistane 11: 8–16. Khan, V. (2022). A voz i nyne tam: kak predotvratit’ publikatsii v “musornykh” dzurnalakh? [from Russ.: And the cart is still there: how to prevent publications in trash journals]. Narodnoye slovo, July 3, https://xs.uz/ru/80496 (accessed July 11, 2022). Manova, I. (2019). The Creation of Philosophical Nations under the Soviet Regime: “Restoring the Historical Truth” about the Peoples of Asia in Philosophy Ad argumenta, Quaestio Special Issues 1: 105-123. March, A. F. (2003). State Ideology and the Legitimation of Authoritarianism: The Case of Post-Soviet Uzbekistan. Journal of Political Ideologies 8 (2): 209-232. Mekhtijev, R. (2001). Azerbaidzan: istoricheskoe nasledie i filosofija nezavisimosti. [from Rus.: Azerbaijan: historical heritage and philosophy of independence]. Baku: Izdatel’stvo Azerbaidzanskoi Natsiomal’noi Entsiklopedii. Plotnikov, N. (2002). Filosofija dlja vnutrennego upotreblenija. [from Russ.: Philosophy for internal use]. Neprikosnovennyi zapas 2: 98–104. Rumer, B. (2002). Tsentral’naia Aziia—desiat’ let spustia. Obzornyi ocherk. [from Russ.: Central Asia and the South Caucasus – ten years ago. An overview], in Tsentral’naia Aziia i Iuzhnyi Kavkaz: nasushchnye problemy, ed. B. Rumer. Almaty: ТОО “East Point”, 5-67. Shermukhamedov, S. (2000). Issues Regarding the Interaction of Spiritual Culture and Social Progress. In: Spiritual Values and Social Progress: Uzbekistan Philosophical Studies, 1. Ed. S. Shermukhamedov, V. Levinskaya. Washington D.C.: The Council for Research in Values and Philosophy, 9–18. Simonov P.V., Ershov P.M., Vjazemskii Ju.P. (1989). Proiskhozdenije dukhovnosti. [from Russ.: Genesis of spirituality]. Moscow: Nauka.

342 YEVGENIY ABDULLAEV Tolipov, F. (2015). V Uzbekistane politologija ob’javlena lzhe-naukoi, ejo prepodavanie v vuzah otmenjaetsja. [from Rus.: In Uzbekistan, political science is declared a pseudoscience, its teaching in universities is canceled]. AsiaTerra. August 31, http://www.asiater ra.info/news/v-uzbekistane-politologiya-ob-yavlena-lzhenaukojee-prepodavanie-v-vuzakh-otmenyaetsya (accessed July 11, 2022).

The Contributors Evgeniy Abdullaev, Cand. Sc. in philosophy (kandidat filosofskikh nauk), is a lecturer at the Tashkent Russian Orthodox Seminary. He is specialized in history of philosophy, mainly in the history of Platonism in the late antiquity as well as in the history of interrelation between Russian philosophy and Russian literature in the beginning of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th centuries. He was a co-editor (with Oksana Dovgopolova and Alexei Kamenskikh) of the collection of papers Gumanitarnaja nauka v Rossii i perelom 1917 goda: ekzistentsial’noe izmerenie (Humanitarian science in Russia and the turning-point of 1917: an existential dimension. Saint-Petersburg: Aleteja, 2017). His articles have appeared in, among other journals, Logos: Philosophy and Literary Journal (Moscow), Social Sciences (Moscow), Voprosy Literatury (Moscow), ESSE: Studies in Philosophy and Theology (SaintPetersburg), Schole: Ancient philosophy and the classical tradition (Novosibirsk). Viktoras Bachmetjevas is an Associate Professor at the Department of Philosophy, Vytautas Magnus University. He published his Ph.D. on irony and ethics in Søren Kierkegaard’s thought. Recently, his work was mostly focused on continental ethics and explores topics such as irony, forgiveness, and alterity. Bachmetjevas is a noted public intellectual in Lithuania and is a co-host to a popular radio show on philosophical issues. In addition to teaching at Vytautas Magnus University, he is a visiting lecturer at the Paris Institute for Critical Thinking. Alex Cosmescu is a Chisinau-based philosopher, linguist and poet, senior researcher at the Sector of Philosophy of the Institute of History (Chisinau) and at the Institute of Romanian Philology “B.P. Hasdeu”. He works in the areas of phenomenology and discourse analysis, investigating the relation between embodiment and language, especially as exhibited in dialogic and artistic practices, such as modern Socratic dialogue, dance, and poetry. Among his 343

344 THE CONTRIBUTORS most recent publications is the Romanian-language contemporary poetry anthology Cine nu e mângâiat nu există (Cartier, 2021), coedited with the Bucharest-based poet Anastasia Gavrilovici. Christopher Donohue, PhD, is historian of the National Human Genome Research Institute, one of the thirty-one Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health. He is co-lead and founder of the History of Genomics Program, a unique philosophical and historical research unit, archive and science communications effort within the United States government, which focuses on the historical and ethical legacies of the Human Genome Project and the science of genomics. Most recently, he is the editor of a special issue on “Social Borrowings and Biological Appropriations” for Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C. His edited volume on “the Human Genome Project and Genomics” with Alan Love (for Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science) is forthcoming (2023). His edited volume, with Charles Wolfe, on “Vitalism and the Contemporary Life Sciences” for Springer is under review. A further volume for Patterns of Prejudice on “‘Slavdom’, Genes and ‘Race Science’: Between Nation-Building and the Global Racial Imaginary” is in preparation with Victoria Shmidt and Christian Promitzer. He is under contract and completed in manuscript for Central European University Press: “’The Master Race in that Sense’: Defenses of Eugenics and Sterilization after the Second World War,” which details American geneticists, philosophers and bioethicists’ defenses of eugenics and involuntary sterilization after WWII. Giorgi Khuroshvili is professor of philosophy at New Georgian University, deputy director of Archive of Caucasian Philosophy and Theology, and senior researcher at the Institute of Philosophy and Social Sciences of Grigol Robakidze University. His major research and teaching areas include: political philosophy, intercultural philosophy, christian philosophy and history of georgian philosophy. Khuroshvili is an author and co-author of the following books: Al-Farabi in Plato`s Political Philosophy (2018), Essays in Political Philosophy, vol. I, II (2016), Philosophy and Theology

THE CONTRIBUTORS 345 in Medieval Georgia (2016), Jerusalem and Athens. Intercultural and Interdisciplinary Context (2015). Khuroshvili is editor-in-chief of the “Encyclopedia of Georgian Philosophy and Theology.” Giorgi is an author of more than 40 articles published in Georgia, Germany, Netherlands, United States and Poland. Also, Giorgi Khuroshvili translated into Georgian the works of Francis Bacon, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Hannah Arendt, Leo Strauss and etc. Denys Kiryukhin is a research scholar at H. Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy (The National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine). His research interests focus on the social and political development of post-communist states, a theory of justice, and political philosophy. Kiryukhin is the author of The Discourses of Justice in Historical Context (Kyiv: Stylus, 2021, in Ukrainian) and An Introduction to Hegel`s Philosophy of Religion: Philosophy as a Speculative Theology (Kyiv: Parapan, 2007, in Ukrainian). Also he is a co-author of several books, among them The Persistence of Justice as Fairness. Reflections on Rawls’s Legacy (Roma: UniversItalia, 2022), Reciprocity: A Human Value in a Pluralistic World (Washington, DC: CRVP, 2022), Community and Tradition in Global Times (editor and co-author; Washington, DC: CRVP, 2021), Ny kold krig. Marie Krarup taler med 17 eksperter fra øst og vest (Hovedland, 2018, in Danish), Justice and Responsibility: Cultural and Philosophical Foundations (Washington, DC: CRVP, 2018), Ukraine in Crisis (London, New York: Routledge, 2017), Ukraine and Russia: People, Politics, Propaganda and Perspectives (Bristol: E-International Relations, 2015). Maija Kūle, Dr. habil. phil., professor emeritus at University of Latvia, full member of the Latvian Academy of sciences and European Academy of sciences and arts (Salzburg), is a director of the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology. Prof. Kūle was a member of the International Association of the Philosophical Societies (FISP, 1998–2013) and is a member of the FISP Committee on Philosophical Encounters and International Cooperation and Committee on History of Philosophy (2008–2024). She is the author of six books on phenomenology and culture, hermeneutics, Latvian philosophy, and a philosophy textbook (written together with prof.

346 THE CONTRIBUTORS Rihards Kūlis). Prof. Kūle has published more than 150 papers in the Latvian, English, Russian, German, and Greek languages on the core philosophical issues including existence, experience, language, historicity, global processes, Latvian identity, European values and human rights. Michail Maiatsky, born in 1960, received his Higher Diploma in Philosophy in Russia, in Rostov-on-Don (1984), then his Ph.D. degree in Ancient Philosophy in Fribourg, Switzerland (2005). He worked as Lecturer at the Universities of Fribourg and Lausanne. He published his books in French: Platon penseur du visuel (2005), Europe-les-Bains (2007), and in Russian: Secondly (2002), Controversy over Plato: Stefan George’s Circle and the German University (2012), Decorations (of) Dependence. Hommage to Jacques Derrida (2019), Ad hominem and back (2020). Since years he is member of the editorial board of the Russian-language review “Logos.” Mikhail (Mykhailo) Minakov is a senior advisor at the Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute and a philosopher and a scholar working in the areas of political philosophy, social theory, development, and history of modernity. He is also the editor-in-chief of the peerreviewed journal Ideology and Politics Journal, of the Kennan Focus Ukraine blog, and of the philosophical web portal Koinè. Among Minakov’s recent books are From “The Ukraine” to Ukraine (coedited with Georgii Kasianov and Matthew Rojansky, ibidemVerlag 2021), Post-Soviet Secessionism (co-edited with Daria Isachenko and Gwendolyn Sasse, ibidem-Verlag 2021), The Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe (in Russian, Laurus 2020), and Development and Dystopia (ibidem-Verlag 2018). His over 120 articles have appeared in, among other journals, Russian Politics and Law, Protest, Southeastern Europe, Transit, Studi slavistici, Mondo economico, Porownania, Neprikosnovennyi zapas, Sententiae, Krytyka, Agora, Ukraina moderna, and Filosofska dumka. Mikhail has over twenty years of experience in research and teaching in the universities of Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Switzerland, and United States.

THE CONTRIBUTORS 347 Tatiana Shchyttsova, Dr. habil. in Philosophy, is a Professor in the Department of Social Sciences and Head of the Center for Research of Intersubjectivity and Interpersonal Communication at the European Humanitites University, Vilnius. In 2007-2009, she conducted research in Germany supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Tatiana gave a number of guest lectures at different European academic institutions including the Institute for Human Sciences in Vienna, the University of Freiburg, the University of Helsinki, the European University at St. Petersburg and others. Her research interests include: social theory, philosophical anthropology, ethics, and political philosophy. Among Shchyttsova's recent books are Anthropology. Ethics. Politics (2014, in Russian), Jenseits der Unbezüglichkeit. Geborensein und intergenerative Erfahrung (2016), Without a Future. Depression and Authoritarian Society (2020, in Russian) (in co-authorship with T. Artimovitch, E. Kovtyak, I. Poleschuck). She is also editor-inchief of the peer-reviewed journal for philosophy and cultural studies Topos and editor of the book series Conditio humana.

Index of Names, Terms, and Titles

Abdiralovič (Kančevskij), Ignat 92, 98

Analytical philosophy 116, 131, 235, 301, 336

Abdullaev, Evgenij 6, 222, 244, 248, 323, 329, 339, 343

Anašvili, Valerij 235

Abolina, Tetiana 303, 312

ancient philosophy 108, 145, 170, 244, 343

Abušenko, Vladimir 91, 99

Ancipenka, Ales’ 92, 95

Adamjanc, Alexander 96

Andreeva, Iskra 243

Adamovič, Georgy 228

Andrijauskas, Antanas 162

aesthetics 53, 102, 104, 118, 125, 136, 139, 141, 143, 147, 158, 163, 212, 218, 229, 232, 252, 266, 270, 285, 332

Anikin, Vladimir 201, 202, 207 Apollonov, Aleksej 244 Arendt, Hannah 7, 14, 23, 29, 62, 119, 129, 144, 146, 150, 168, 226, 286, 316, 345

Afonasin, Evgenij 244 Agamben, Giorgio 31, 62, 144, 163, 221, 233

Aristotle 37, 143, 169, 253, 267, 269

Ajrapetian, Vardan 222, 248

Aronson, Oleg 229, 249

AKAΔHMEIA Almanac 244

Arsen (of Ikalto) 101, 104

Akhiezer, Aleksandr 241, 248

Asmus, Valentin 27, 38, 73

Akhtyrsky, Dmitry 221

Athena, journal 171

Akhutin, Anatoly 237, 243, 244, 248

Averincev, Sergei 241, 284, 306 Avtonomova, Natalya 233, 239, 249, 254

Akopian, Ovanes 245, 249 Akudovič, Valiantsin 92, 95, 99

Axelrod, Liubov’ 38

Al-Biruni, Abu Arrayhan Muhammad ibn Ahmad 327

Babajev, Dzalal 324 Babii, Alexandru 180, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 203, 204, 207

Aleknienė, Tatjana 168, 170

Bacevičiūtė, Danutė 167, 169

Alekseev, Aleksandr 217, 230, 249

Bachmetjevas, Viktoras 5, 21, 27, 62, 153, 167, 343

Aleksidze, Lela 107, 108

Badiou, Alain 75, 78, 79, 99, 233

Al-Farabi, Abū Naṣr Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad 327, 344

Bagrationi, Anton 104, 107, 111 Bakhadirov, Roik 327, 339

349

350 INDEX Bakhtin, Mikhail 37, 42, 50, 71, 78, 239, 274

Bohačev, Andrij 305

Bakhurst, David 24, 63

Borodaj, Tatyana 244, 252

Bakradze, Konstantine 102

Bosenko, Aleksej 222, 252

Baltos lankos, journal 166, 174

Braginskaja, Nina 217

Bandurovskij, Konstantin 221, 244, 245, 250

Bregvadze, Bachana 109

Baranova, Jūratė 166

Brušlinskij, Vladimir 38

Barkovskij, Pavel 222, 250 Batiščev, Genrikh 27, 56, 67

Boričevskij, Ivan 38

Briedis, Leons 144, 148 Buachidze, Tamaz 102, 104

Batkin, Leonid 237, 250

Buceniece, Ella 126, 130, 131, 134, 137, 146, 147

Baudrillard, Jean 221, 233

Bulatov, Mikhail 310, 316

Bauman, Zygmunt 166, 173, 177

Butor, Michel 176

Baumeister, Andrej 221, 222, 250, 313, 316

Buzgalin, Aleksandr 232, 252

Bedil, Abdul-Qādir 327

Bykova, Marina 28, 33, 46, 68, 212, 219, 252

Beinorius, Audrius 163

Čaadaev, Pëtr 230

Berdyaev, Nikolaj 36

Caesura 22, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 48, 52, 56, 59, 61, 70, 77, 247

Bergson, Henry 113, 132, 146, 148, 179 Berlin, Isaiah 8, 63, 65, 66, 113, 121, 128, 144, 168, 211, 233, 253, 255, 259, 264, 266, 269, 273, 274, 276, 279, 282 Bibikhin, Vladimir 225, 226, 251 Bibler, Vladimir 50, 56, 63, 237, 248, 251 Bičevskis, Raivis 131, 143, 146, 148 Bielskis, Andrius 160, 170 Bikbov, Aleksandr 233, 238, 252 Bitov, Andrei 239

Camus, Albert 49 Čanyšev, Arsenij 215 Capcelea, Valeriu 177, 178, 184, 207 Cassin, Barbara 307, 316 Catholicism 11, 50, 70, 129, 132, 133, 134, 199, 226, 234, 302, 312, 313, 320 Celiščev, Vitalij 233 Celm, Jelena 139 Celms, Teodors 130, 132, 137, 147, 149

Blonskij, Pavel 38

Čelovek, journal 219, 256, 272, 276

Blumenkranz, Michael 218

Černiakov, Alexei 216, 253

Bobână, Gheorghe 180, 199, 207

Černoglazov, Aleksandr 233

Boboc, Alexandru 198, 199, 207

Černyšev, Boris 38, 219

Bocheński, Józef 24, 283, 316

Černyšev, Sergej 38, 219

Bodean, Nicolae 187, 188, 207

Chavchavadze, Niko 102, 104

INDEX 351 Cheianu, Carolina 185, 207

Dissernet, project 216

Chuhina, Larisa 126, 147, 149

Djakov, Aleksandr 237, 254

Cimdiņa, Ausma 130, 142, 147

Dmitriev, Aleksander 28, 62, 63, 215, 217, 233, 239, 245, 254, 255, 284, 294, 317

Ciolkovskij, Konstantin 50, 252 civilization paradigm 215 Collins, Randall 28, 30, 63, 221 Correlationism 237 Cosmescu, Alexandru 5, 175, 343 Čukhrov, Keti 229 Culture & Philosophy, magazine 118 Culture, philosophy of 102, 118, 133, 236 Cvetkov-Jr. 232, 253 Cvetkov-Jr., Alexei 232 Cyb, Aleksej 244 Dagys, Jonas 153, 162, 173 Dāle, Pauls 130, 147 Danelia, Sergi 102

Dmitriev, Timofey 28, 62, 63, 215, 217, 233, 239, 245, 254, 255, 284, 294, 317 Dmitriev, Viačeslav 28, 62, 63, 215, 217, 233, 239, 245, 254, 255, 284, 294, 317 Dobrokhotov, Aleksandr 224, 237, 243 Dobronravova, Iryna 303 Dobryninas, Aleksandras 168 Dodashvili, Solomon 104 Dogmatism 38, 52, 187, 195, 324, 326 Dokučaev, Ilya 237, 255 Donskikh, Oleg 215, 255

Danilov, Viačeslav 215, 217, 220

Donskis, Leonidas 28, 34, 64, 166, 167, 173

Davydov, Aleksandr 218, 229, 230, 239, 253, 254

Dostoevsky, Fëdor 49, 71, 228, 236

Deborin, Aleksandr 38, 39, 125

Dranseika, Vilius 164, 167, 169

Degutis, Algirdas 162

Dubin, Boris 233, 239, 255

Dennett, Daniel 221, 281

Dubrovsky, David 235

Derlugyan, Georgy 221, 254

Dudenkova, Irina 217, 255

Derrida, Jacques 66, 128, 163, 177, 179, 221, 226, 231, 233, 249, 254, 267, 276, 295, 346

Dugin, Aleksandr 70, 216, 241

Desnickij, Andrei 241

Dunaev, Vladimir 95

Dialectics, dialectic 25, 32, 43, 45, 51, 68, 69, 85, 89, 94, 171, 198, 267, 268, 283, 312, 320, 322, 346 diamat, dialectical materialism 35, 43, 51, 53, 72, 125, 226, 287, 288

Dukh i Litera, journal 306, 316, 317, 318 Dzalalov, Abdulhafiz 329, 333, 334, 340 Dzanmatova, Khakima 327, 340 Dziuba, Ivan 48, 64, 70 Džokhadze, David 235, 255, 256 Dzumaev, Rustam 334

352 INDEX EINAI, journal 218 Ejzenštejn, Sergei 228, 229, 271

264, 273, 276, 277, 338, 340, 341

Eliade, Mircea 176, 180, 186, 204, 206, 207

Filosofija. Sociologija, journal 171

Elibrary.ru 220

Filosofskie nauki, journal 217

Engels, Friedrich 54, 231

Filosofskij žurnal 219

Engström, Maria 34, 68

Florenskij, Pavel 44, 50, 60

Epistemologija i filosofija nauki, journal 219, 275

Fokht, Boris 37

Epstein, Mikhail 28, 47, 48, 49, 50, 54, 64, 221, 256

Foucault, Michel 31, 64, 70, 80, 84, 110, 128, 129, 138, 233, 240, 254, 276

Ernst Karpovics 125, 150 Erofeev, Viktor 239 Ethics 53, 65, 99, 102, 116, 118, 125, 130, 133, 134, 138, 139, 140, 141, 144, 150, 151, 167, 169, 205, 225, 226, 235, 256, 275, 284, 288, 292, 303, 311, 312, 317, 319, 332, 343, 344, 347 Etkind, Aleksandr 221, 238, 256 Eurasian 33, 239 Eurasianism, Eurasian 242 Evola, Giulio (Julius) 48 Falsafa va Hayot / Filosofija i zhizn’ / Philosophy and Life Journal 338 Falsafa va Huquq Journal 329 Fedčuk, Dmitrij 244, 245, 256 Fedotova, Ilzes 139, 147, 230, 256, 331, 340 Fedotova, Valentina 139, 147, 230, 256, 331, 340 Filippenko, Natalia 304, 317 Filippov, Aleksandr 230, 257 Filosof.historic.ru 220 Filosofija, journal 67, 69, 70, 71, 99, 149, 151, 171, 173, 219, 238, 251, 252, 254, 255, 262,

Fokin, Sergey 233

Frank, Semion 21, 36, 64, 211, 221 Freiberga, Elga 130, 139, 147 Freidenberg, Olga 38 Freud, Sigmund 60, 128, 267 Frolov, Ivan 60, 64 Fromm, Erich 128, 336 Fukuyama, Francis 290 Furs (Fours), Vladimir 78, 85, 88, 90, 99, 222, 257 Gaaze, Konstantin 217 Gadamer, Hans-Georg 80, 85, 136, 143, 165, 168, 236 Gajdenko, Piama 64, 243, 244, 245, 257 Gajdenko, Violetta 64, 243, 244, 245, 257 Galkovskij, Dmitrij 230, 257 Gapova, Elena 238, 257 Garadža, Alexey 233, 257 Gasparian, Diana 215, 216, 238 Gavrilenko, Stanislav 233 Gedutis, Aldis 154, 161, 167, 173 Gefter, Mikhail 241, 257 Gejde, Marianna 239

INDEX 353 Gellner, Ernest 221, 311 Geopolitics 239, 241, 253 Georgia, Georgian 5, 18, 48, 56, 65, 72, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 135, 137, 308, 326, 345 Georgian, philosophy 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110, 112, 117, 118, 119 Gergun, Artem 311, 317 Gigineishvili, Levan 107, 108, 120 Gills, Nikandrs 130, 137, 147 Girenok, Fëdor 215, 216, 230, 258 Glukhov, Alexei 220, 238, 244, 258 Gogatishvili, Mikheil 119 Gogiberidze, Mose 102, 107 Gogol, Nikolay 228, 271 Gorbachev, Mikhail 58, 231, 259 Gorgadze, Sergi 107 Goričeva, Tatjana 238, 258 Grāmata, journal 144 Grīnfelde, Māra 136, 137, 148 Grjaznov, Aleksandr 235 Gromov, Roman 215, 233 Groys, Boris 221, 259 Grušin, Boris 229, 259, 294 Guenon, Rene 48 Gulyga, Arseniy 243 Gumbrecht, Hans Ulrich 221 Gumer.info 220 Gutauskas, Mintautas 161, 167, 173 Guțu, Vasile 186, 187, 207

Habermas, Jürgen 21, 28, 57, 65, 85, 129, 143, 221, 304 Harman, Graham 221, 234, 237 Hassan, Ihab 176 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 7, 8, 37, 45, 57, 85, 102, 106, 109, 112, 114, 119, 125, 136, 142, 143, 150, 168, 231, 252, 256, 285, 289, 310, 311, 316, 318, 333, 340, 345 Heidegger, Martin 30, 31, 57, 63, 65, 66, 70, 76, 78, 79, 106, 109, 128, 132, 134, 136, 146, 148, 150, 165, 168, 179, 183, 184, 225, 234, 237, 251, 253, 263, 306, 308 Hénaff, Marcel 221 Herder, Johann Gottfried 131, 132, 143, 146 Herf, Jeffrey 13, 14 heritage 55, 66, 83, 104, 117, 130, 133, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 189, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 203, 204, 205, 206, 285, 295, 314, 321, 341 Hermeneutics 80, 83, 132, 159, 161, 166, 248, 304, 309, 316, 318, 336, 345 Historiosophy 239 Hobbes, Thomas 169, 261 Hors’kyj (Gorsky), Vilen 72 Hösle, Vittorio 21, 65, 221, 259, 307 Husserl, Edmund 57, 128, 132, 136, 143, 147, 168, 234, 253, 304, 318 Ibn-Sina, Abū ʿAlī al-Ḥusayn ibn ʿAbd Allāh 327

354 INDEX Idealism 105, 106, 125, 130, 147, 195, 245, 288, 308, 310

Javakhishvili, Ivane 103, 104, 105, 107, 117

Ijabs, Ivars 146, 148

Jermolenko, Anatolij 26, 55, 66, 288, 289, 290, 292, 298, 299, 302, 303, 307, 311, 312, 317, 318, 321

Ilyenkov, Evald 27, 56, 63, 227, 232, 235, 266 Ilyin, Ilya 237, 240 Ilyin, Ivan 237, 240 Intellectual 8, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 28, 33, 34, 37, 42, 45, 46, 51, 54, 59, 61, 62, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75, 77, 78, 80, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 94, 95, 102, 104, 106, 107, 111, 127, 129, 131, 132, 144, 149, 158, 159, 163, 166, 169, 180, 221, 227, 230, 232, 240, 241, 244, 255, 262, 264, 272, 281, 287, 291, 293, 297, 298, 299, 306, 307, 309, 315, 323, 324, 332, 343 Ionin, Leonid 230, 260 Iremadze, Tengiz 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 120 istmat, historical materialism 43, 53, 214, 287 Istorija filosofii, journal 219, 268 Ivanov, Nikolaj 27, 56, 63, 215, 235, 237, 244, 245, 260 Ivanov, Vadim 27, 56, 63, 215, 235, 237, 244, 245, 260 Ivanov, Vitalij 27, 56, 63, 215, 235, 237, 244, 245, 260 Ivanova, Julia 245, 260, 261, 317, 319, 322, 326 Jakovlev, Anatolij 245, 261 Jakovlev, Valentin 245, 261 Jaroš, Oleg 312, 317 Jaspers, Karl 28, 30, 66, 128, 306

Jermolenko, Volodymyr 26, 55, 66, 288, 289, 290, 292, 298, 299, 302, 303, 307, 311, 312, 317, 318, 321 Ji, journal 306 Jokubaitis, Alvydas 156, 166, 167, 168, 169, 173 Jolon, Petro 287, 318 Jonkus, Dalius 161, 167, 170, 173 Jonutytė, Jurga 167 Journal of Philosophy and Law 175, 189, 191, 192, 198, 200, 204 Journal of Philosophy, Social Science, and Political Science 175, 181, 186, 189, 191, 204, 206 Judin, Pavel 39, 44, 69, 261 Stalin, Joseph 10, 26, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 54, 56, 63, 71, 124, 125, 214, 223, 231 Jung, Carl Gustav 60, 128 Jurevičs, Pauls 130, 148 Jusupov, Erkin 324 Kačalov, Alexey 233 Kačerauskas, Tomas 48, 71, 161, 164, 170, 174 Kagarlickij, Boris 232, 261, 262 Kakabadze, Zurab 102, 113 Kalinin, Ilya 218 Kammari, Mikhail 44

INDEX 355 Kant, Imanuel 37, 45, 57, 67, 70, 85, 109, 125, 132, 133, 134, 136, 143, 145, 148, 151, 168, 228, 237, 259, 285, 289, 303, 305, 310, 311, 316, 319 Kareev, Nikolaj 38, 44 Karimov, Islam 324, 328, 330, 333, 334, 335, 336, 338, 340 Karpovics, Ernst 125, 150 Kazakhstan 28, 48, 52, 71, 326, 332 Kaziberdov, Anatolij 327, 341 Kebuladze, Vachtang 222, 262, 293, 305, 318, 319, 321 Kedrov, Bonifatii 28, 67 Kekelidze, Korneli 103, 107 Kentaurs XXI, journal 144, 148 Khairullaev, Muzaffar 324, 325, 326, 327, 341 Khamitov, Nazip 222, 262 Khanova, Polina 233 Kharitonova, Ol’gerta 238, 262 Khaustov, Dmitry 237, 262 Khidasheli, Shalva 107

Kopnin, Pavel 28, 50, 55, 70, 283, 285, 309, 318 Kordonsky, Simon 230 Koroļeva, Ilze 142 Košarnyj, Stepan 304, 318 Kosikov, Georgy 233 Kosilova, Elena 220, 238, 263 Kovaļčuka, Svetlana 126 Kožinov, Vadim 241 Kozlova, Marija 64, 222, 229, 230, 235, 250, 263 Kozlova, Natalya 64, 222, 229, 230, 235, 250, 263 Kralečkin, Dmitri 217, 220, 233, 237, 263, 264 Krotov, Artëm 220, 243, 245, 264 Krotov, Jakov 220, 243, 245, 264 Krūmiņa-Koņkova, Solveiga 137, 142 Kukaine, Jana 141, 149 Kūle, Maija 5, 21, 27, 67, 123, 126, 130, 135, 137, 139, 149, 345

Khoružij, Sergei 226

Kūlis, Māris 133, 134, 139, 143, 145, 148, 149, 346

Khrushchev, Nikita 46, 54, 64, 259, 285

Kūlis, Rihards 133, 134, 139, 143, 145, 148, 149, 346

Khudožestvennyj žurnal 218

Kundera, Milan 290, 306

Kierkegaard, Søren 128, 151, 163, 174, 274, 276, 343

Kuniaev, Stanislav 241

Kiope, Māra 132, 148

Kurennoj, Vitalij 67, 222, 234, 237, 239, 258, 264

Khoma, Oleg 304, 308

Kirtiklis, Kęstas 167

Kuraev, Andrei 241

Kiryukhin, Denys 6, 283, 305, 310, 312, 318, 345

Kuricyn, Viačeslav 237, 264

Klīve, Visvaldis 129, 138, 149

Kuzmickas, Bronius 159

Kołakowski, Leszek 158

Kuznecov, Vasilij 215, 216, 218, 245, 264, 265

Kommentarii, journal 218

Kurilovič, Ivan 234

356 INDEX Kοινὴ Almanac 315 Labuchidze-Khopheria, Dodo 109

Liepnieks, Jurģis 143, 146, 151, 270 Lifšic, Mikhail 232

Ladusāns, Staņislavs 129, 132

Lipovetsky, Mark 34, 68

Laķis, Pēteris 139, 149

Lisovyj, Vasyl 51, 297, 298, 303, 311, 319

Lapickij, Viktor 234 Lapinska, Ieva 141, 150 Lasmane, Skaidrīte 138, 150 Latvia, Latvian 5, 18, 27, 67, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 345 Latvian philosophy 126, 130, 133, 140, 144, 145, 345 Lazerson, Maxim 131

Lithuania 27, 28, 47, 50, 64, 66, 144, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172 Lithuania, Lithuanian 5, 18, 48, 62, 65, 66, 67, 71, 72, 81, 90, 95, 135, 137, 144, 153, 154, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 174, 219, 222, 343

Lebedev, Maksim 234, 244, 265

Lithuanian philosophy 64, 66, 155, 156, 157, 159, 160, 161, 163, 164, 166, 169, 172

Lekhcier, Vitalij 238, 239, 265

Liutyj, Taras 305, 313, 319

Lektorskij, Vladislav 33, 46, 56, 67, 68, 216, 239

Logos, journal 70, 71, 113, 121, 171, 218, 250, 255, 265, 271, 343, 346

Lebedev, Andrei 234, 244, 265

Lenin, Vladimir 7, 15, 26, 38, 54, 231 Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 7

Loj, Anatolij 26, 68, 289, 299, 303, 319

Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 26

Losev, Aleksej 28, 37, 40, 42, 68, 72, 244, 284

Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 38

Losskij, Nikolaj 36, 225

Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 54

Lotman, Jurij 28, 56, 66, 239, 242, 249, 262

Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 15

Ulyanov-Lenin, Vladimir 231 Leninism 24, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 46, 49, 52, 53, 54, 69, 80, 102, 124, 141, 157, 158, 215, 227, 236, 239, 242, 286, 288, 294, 296, 300, 314, 318, 325, 326, 331, 333, 336

Lukács, György 158, 232, 254, 266

Levinas, Emanuel 66, 144, 150, 167, 168, 234

Mackevič, Vladimir 94, 96, 99, 222, 250

Levit, Svetlana 234, 237, 265

Luppol, Ivan 7, 15, 44 Lūse, Agita 127 Lutheranism 129, 133, 134 Lytvynov, Volodymyr 310, 319

INDEX 357 Madaeva, Shakhnoza 337, 338 Magun, Artemij 219, 238, 266 Maiatsky, Michail 6, 211, 346 Makharadze, Mikheil 103, 121 Malakhov, Viktor 221, 224, 257, 266, 288, 303, 306, 319 Malakhov, Vladimir 221, 224, 257, 266, 288, 303, 306, 319 Mamardašvili, Merab 28, 56, 59, 69, 71, 73, 135, 136, 150, 227, 228, 229, 235, 271, 284 Mareev, Sergei 232, 266 Margvelashvili, Givi 106 Markaziy Osiyo renessansi jurnali / Journal of Central Asian Renaissance 338 Marković, Mihailo 10, 13, 14 Marx, Karl 7, 8, 48, 54, 57, 194, 195, 223, 231, 232, 243, 255, 266, 276, 285, 296, 298, 314, 316 Marxism 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 80, 102, 103, 109, 123, 124, 125, 127, 129, 133, 135, 141, 153, 157, 158, 160, 162, 163, 172, 193, 199, 215, 223, 224, 227, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, 239, 242, 243, 253, 254, 255, 261, 267, 277, 279, 283, 284, 285, 286, 288, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 314, 317, 318, 319, 322, 325, 326, 327, 331, 333, 336, 337 Marxism-Leninism, Soviet Marxism 24, 26, 32, 36, 38,

41, 42, 43, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 55, 63, 67, 69, 80, 102, 141, 157, 158, 215, 227, 236, 239, 242, 277, 284, 285, 286, 288, 294, 296, 298, 299, 300, 314, 318, 322, 325, 326, 331, 333, 336, 337 Maslov, Danila 244, 245, 267 Materialism 25, 35, 37, 39, 43, 51, 53, 72, 125, 171, 195, 214, 226, 268, 287, 288 Mauriņa, Zenta 130, 133 Maximov, Sergey 303 Mažeikis, Gintautas 167, 170 Medvedev, Artur 59, 68, 218 Melkov, Jurij 295, 297, 305, 319 Menžulin, Vadim 222, 267, 303, 319 Meškauskas, Eugenijus 158 metaphysics 41, 85, 86, 104, 118, 132, 162, 216, 225, 302 Mežuev, Vadim (Vadym) 224, 227, 232, 267 Mickūnas, Algis 161 Mieriņa, Inta 142, 148 Mikhailov, Anatolij 83, 87, 95, 326 Mikhajlov, Aleksandr 234 Mikutis, Justinas 158 Milerius, Nerijus 160, 167, 174 Milts, Augusts 126, 139, 150 Minakov, Mikhail (Mykhailo) 1, 5, 7, 17, 21, 26, 28, 34, 68, 69, 222, 267, 283, 288, 292, 301, 305, 310, 311, 312, 319, 320, 346 Minenkov, Grigorij 95 Mišatkina, Tat’jana 222 Misiano, Viktor 218

358 INDEX Mitin, Mark 39, 40, 41, 44, 69 Mitrofanova, Alla 238

Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, journal 66, 218

Mogila, Petru (Mohyla, Petro) 199, 204, 284, 301, 310, 321

Nutsubidze, Shalva 102, 103, 107, 113

Mokin, Boris 215

Ogurcov, Aleksandr 43, 70, 237, 268

Molčanov, Viktor 225, 234, 268 Moldova, Moldovan 5, 18, 175, 176, 179, 180, 183, 185, 186, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196, 197, 199, 203, 204, 207 Moldovan philosophy 180, 193, 196, 204

Orlov, Daniel 70, 218, 244, 269 Ortega y Gasset, Jose 132, 145, 233 Orthodox Christianity 9, 24, 133, 212, 226, 227, 241, 242, 247, 314

Mordukhai-Boltovskij, Dmitrij 38

Osis, Jēkabs 130

Motrošilova, Nelli 28, 56, 69, 234, 243, 268

Oznobkina, Elena 229, 269

Our Heritage journal 83

Mtsire, Ephraim 104

Pahopol, Savva 196, 197, 201, 207

Muminov, Ibragim 326, 327

Palēviča, Milda 141, 150

Myhalʹčenko, Mykola 293, 320

Palievskij, Pëtr 241

Nadtočij, Eduard 220

Panarin, Aleksandr 241, 269

Nancy, Jean-Luc 31, 70, 136, 221, 233

Panin, Alexander 60

nationalism 35, 48, 51, 55, 56, 59, 66, 70, 91, 187, 285, 301, 327

Pantin, Igor’ 241, 269

Naukovi Zapysky. Philosophy and Religious Studies Journal 73, 309 Naumenko, Lev 232, 268

Pan-Slavism 242 Paramonov, Boris 221, 269 Pascaru, Ana 182, 183, 208 Patočka, Jan 78, 79, 96, 99 Pavilionis, Rolandas 162 Pavlov, Aleksandr 237, 239, 269

Nekrašas, Evaldas 162, 173, 174

Pavlovskij, Gleb 219, 269

Neo-Marxism 255, 294, 296, 298, 299, 314

Pelevin, Viktor 239 Penzin, Aleksej 229, 269

Neretina, Svetlana 56, 237, 244, 268

Percev, Aleksandr 215, 234, 270

Nietzsche, Friedrich 60, 109, 115, 125, 132, 177, 234

Perestroika 32, 49, 57, 58, 60, 80, 81, 83, 109, 165, 214, 215, 224, 231, 331

Nikiforov, Aleksandr 234 Nivat, Georges 306 Norkus, Zenonas 168

Perciun, Andrei 188, 208

INDEX 359 Petritsi, Ioane 101, 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 113, 114, 120, 121 Petrov, Mikhail 56, 244, 270 Petrovskaja, Elena 229, 239, 270 Phenomenology 66, 71, 82, 102, 104, 106, 115, 126, 134, 136, 137, 138, 147, 148, 149, 151, 157, 159, 161, 163, 165, 167, 170, 173, 174, 179, 228, 233, 234, 237, 252, 253, 255, 256, 259, 261, 264, 265, 268, 270, 276, 301, 303, 304, 308, 309, 318, 336, 343, 345 philosophical condition, Soviet 9, 10, 19, 22, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 43, 46, 48, 52, 55, 57, 58, 60, 61, 285, 294, 297 philosophical condition, postSoviet 19, 294, 297 Philosophical-Theological Reviewer, journal 118 Philosophska Dumka, journal 292, 298, 308 Philosophy 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 92, 93, 95, 96, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132,

133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 346, 347 Philosophy, post-Soviet 8, 154, 172, 314 Philosophy, Ukrainian 50, 51, 292, 294, 298, 299, 301, 303, 309, 310, 311, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319 Philosophy.ru 220

360 INDEX Piatigorsky, Alekandr 217, 221, 270

Rahner, Karl 134

Pigrov, Konstantin 215, 216, 270

Rakhmaninova, Maria 238, 272

Pirktiņa, Iveta 133, 136

Ramishvili, Lamara 110

Pisarev, Aleksandr 234

Rău, Alexe 179, 208

Plāte, Modris 134

Raudive, Konstantīns 130

Plato, Platonism 7, 37, 101, 109, 125, 168, 169, 179, 186, 206, 207, 244, 248, 252, 258, 270, 275, 278, 313, 317, 343, 344, 346

Rawls, John 293, 320, 345

Platonic Studies, journal 244 Platonov, Andrei 228, 229 Plotnikov, Nikolay 70, 221, 222, 258, 259, 264, 270, 338, 341 Podoroga, Valerij 227, 228, 229, 254, 270, 271 Pogonyaylo, Aleksandr 234

Radavičienė, Nijolė 170

Realism 127, 167, 211, 237, 256, 284 Redovičs, Agris 140 Regev, Yoel 221, 237, 272 Religija ir kultūra, journal 171 Ricœur, Paul 57, 66, 165, 168, 221, 306 Rīgas laiks 139 Rītups, Arnis 143, 146 Roerich, Nikolai 50, 67

Poletko, Victor 312, 320

Rogoža, Maria 305, 312, 320

Popovyč, Myroslav 28, 56, 70, 291, 303, 306, 320, 321

Rolavs, Atis 133 Romanticism 8, 132, 133, 145

Porus, Vladimir 70, 224

Romaško, Sergei 234

Postmodernism 54, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 157, 167, 176, 177, 183, 184, 205, 208, 249, 252, 258, 259, 262, 264, 266, 269, 276, 322

Roșca, Alexandru 200, 208

Pozniak, Zianon 81, 82 Prigojine, Ilya 221 Problemos, journal 169, 170, 173, 174 Prokopov, Denis 305 Proleev, Sergij 25, 28, 70, 303 Protopopova, Irina 244, 278 Punctummagazine 140 Putinaitė, Nerija 155, 156, 168, 174 Rabinovič, Vadim 237, 272

Rozanov, Vassily 225, 230 Rozenvalds, Juris 138, 147 Rubene, Māra 127, 136, 150 Rubenis, Andris 134, 138, 150, 151 Rubenis, Juris 134, 138, 150, 151 Rudnev, Vadim 235, 238, 273 Rumleanschi, Petru 198, 199, 208 Russia, Russian 6, 8, 9, 15, 18, 19, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 35, 37, 39, 40, 47, 48, 50, 55, 56, 59, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 82, 89, 90, 93, 95, 97, 102, 123, 125, 126, 129, 131, 132, 133, 135, 136, 139,

INDEX 361 141, 167, 176, 181, 192, 196, 199, 201, 203, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 239, 240, 242, 243, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 252, 253, 254, 256, 257, 258, 259, 260, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 279, 280, 282, 289, 290, 303, 304, 306, 315, 323, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 335, 336, 338, 339, 343, 345, 346, 347 Russian philosophy 69, 211, 216, 220, 221, 222, 224, 233, 234, 236, 246, 257, 338, 343 Rutmanis, Kārlis 128 Ryklin, Mikhail 221, 229, 254, 273, 274 Sabolius, Kristupas 161, 164, 167, 169, 174

Scanlan, James 24, 70 Ščedrovickij, Georgij 49, 56, 227, 230 Scheler, Max 127, 128, 177 Schmid, Wilhelm 138 Science, philosophy of 51, 62, 162, 219, 284, 285, 303 Scientific communism 53, 54, 124, 214, 287, 301 Sekackij, Aleksandr 215, 216, 230, 275 Sekundant, Sergej 245, 275 Semenov, Nikolaj 95 Semkovskij, Semion 44 Senokosov, Jurij 218 Sententiae, journal 308, 319, 346 Serežnikov, Viktor 38 Sergeev, Konstantin 222, 244, 245, 275 Šerpytytė, Rita 163, 166, 167, 168, 169, 174 Sharipov, Anvar 327

Safronov, Pëtr 215, 216, 217, 274

Shcherbak, Svetlana 305, 320

Saldukaitytė, Jolanta 167

Shchittsova (Ščitcova), Tatjana 219, 222, 235, 238, 260, 274, 275

Salmin, Alexei 241, 274 Sandomirskaya, Irina 221 Șaptefrați, Silvia 177, 178, 183, 189, 208 Sarabjanov, Vladimir 38 Sârbu, Ion 199, 208 Šarov, Vladimir 239 Sartre, Jean-Paul 49, 234 Šauers, Edijs 133 Šaulauskas, Marius Povilas 167 Savčuk, Valerij 215, 216, 239, 274 Saveljeva, Marina 222, 238, 239, 254, 271, 274

Shermukhamedova, Niginakhon 337, 338 Shestov, Lev 49 Šičalin, Yuri 244, 275 Sigov, Konstiantyn 306, 307, 321 Šimfa, Elvīra 133, 134, 144, 151 Sinajskij, Vasilij 131 Sinij divan, journal 218 Skovoroda, Grygorij 296, 345 Skuratov, Boris 234 Skvortsov-Stepanov, Ivan 38

362 INDEX Slavophile, Slavophilism 48 Šliogeris, Arvydas 155, 156, 157, 159, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 174

Spirituality (dukhovnost’) 7, 134, 138, 145, 177, 179, 180, 185, 193, 236, 290, 293, 310, 321, 331, 332, 336, 337, 340, 341

Šmatko, Natalja 234

Stančienė, Dalia Marija 171

Smirnov, Igor 215, 216, 222, 276

Staņislavs Ladusāns 129, 132

Smirnov, Sergey 215, 216, 222, 276

Stankevičs, Zbigņevs 134, 151

Smola, Klavdia 34, 68

Stavenhagen, Kurt 131, 137, 147

Šmonin, Dmitrij 245, 276

Šteinbergs, Valentīns 124

Sodeika, Tomas 159, 161, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 174

Stienis, Jānis 38, 44, 124, 125

Sokolov, Boris 71, 233, 234, 243, 245, 261, 276, 277

Stepun, Fëdor 225

Sokolov, Pavel 71, 233, 234, 243, 245, 261, 276, 277

Strelkova, Anastasia 312, 320

Sokuler, Zinaida 235, 277 Solovjëv, Erich 243, 277 Sorokin, Pitirim 36 Soviet Marxism 24, 26, 29, 32, 38, 43, 45, 48, 49, 50, 54, 55, 63, 67, 277, 284, 285, 294, 298, 299, 300, 322, 337 Soviet philosophy 7, 8, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 58, 62, 63, 67, 68, 69, 70, 73, 154, 172, 223, 224, 227, 245, 284, 286, 294, 295, 297, 299, 314, 325, 327

Stasis, journal 219

Stepanova, Maria 239 Stoliarov, Aleksandr 244 Studia Universitatis Moldavie 190 Studies in East-European Thought, journal 250 Stupeni, journal 218 Sturdza, Alexandru Scarlat 186, 203, 204 Stus, Vasyl 51 Subjectivism 212 Šurbelev, Aleksandr 234 Surkov, Vladislav 241, 242, 278 Šuvajevs, Igors 127, 133, 138, 139, 143, 148, 151 Svasyan, Karen 221

Sovietology, Sovietologist 63, 168

Sverdiolas, Arūnas 48, 71, 161, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 174

Šparaga (Shparaga), Olga 96, 222, 277

Sverstyuk, Jevhen 51

Spengler, Oswald 13, 50, 132

Svirskij, Jakov 234

Špet, Gustav 37, 44, 234 Spilne / Commons, journal 314

Svetlov, Roman 244, 278 Svitlyčnyj, Ivan 51 Swiderski, Edward 219, 222, 250, 278

INDEX 363 Syg.ma, portal 217 Symčyc, Mykola 310 Šynkaruk, Volodymyr 285, 296, 321 Țapoc, Vasile 198, 199, 208 Telos, journal 140, 145 Temkina, Anna 238, 278 Terlecʹkyj, Vitalij 310, 321 Tevzadze, Guram 21, 72, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 121 Thaw, period of 46, 50, 52, 56, 213, 231, 267, 285 Timiriazev, Arkadij 38 Timofeeva, Oksana 229, 279 Tīrons, Uldis 140 Tiščenko, Yurij 215 Tkačuk, Maryna 28, 72

Ušakin (Oushakine), Sergey 21, 70, 222, 238, 279 Usmanova, Almira 238, 279 Uzbek, philosophy 38, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340 Uzbekistan, Uzbek 6, 18, 222, 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342 Uždavinys, Algis 166, 174 Vajnštejn, Ol’ga 237, 280 Vakhštain, Viktor 220, 238, 280 Van der Zweerde, Evert 24, 72 Varjas, Sandor 38

Topos, journal 69, 99, 219, 347

Varzari, Panteleimon 192, 193, 209

Trofăilă, Lidia 201, 208

Vasiljev, Vadim 235, 245, 280

Troianowski, Lidia 175, 176, 178, 180, 181, 183, 208

Vasilyeva, Tatyana 244

Tsereteli, Savle 102, 104, 116

Vdovina, Irena 234, 244, 280

Tsophurashvili, Tamar 105, 116 Tuzova, Tamara 222, 279 Ukraine, Ukrainian 6, 18, 19, 27, 28, 38, 47, 48, 50, 51, 55, 62, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 97, 135, 141, 196, 222, 242, 247, 277, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 325, 326, 328, 329, 331, 339, 345, 346 Upravitelev, Aleksandr 215 Ursul, Arcadi 181, 186, 208

Vdovina, Galina 234, 244, 280 Vecvagars, Māris 129 Vedrov, Alexej 311, 321 Vējš, Jānis 127, 144, 146, 150, 151 Vernadsky, Vladimir 39, 50 Vilciņš, Raitis 128 Visnyk of the Shevchenko Kyiv National University. Philosophy 288, 308, 309 Vizgin, Viktor 234, 237, 280 Vlasova, Olga 234 Vodolažskaya, Tatiana 96 Volšebnaja gora, journal 218 Voprosy filosofii, journal 66, 217, 261, 267

364 INDEX Vozniak, Taras 306

Zakaradze, Lali 73, 118

Vrabie, Emil 203, 207

Zālīte, Pēteris 133

Vtoraja navigacija, journal 218

Zamjatin, Dmitrij 229

Vygotskij, Lev 37, 266

Zariņš, Vilnis 126, 127

Welte, Bernhard 134

Ždanov, Andrej 283, 322

Wittgenstein, Ludwig 128, 144, 151, 225, 235, 251, 258, 263, 268, 273, 277

Zdravomyslova, Elena 238, 278, 281

Yampolsky, Mikhail 222, 239, 281

Zenkin, Sergei 234, 239, 281, 282

Yanko, Slava 220

Zinoviev, Aleksandr 56, 230

Yermakov, Sergei 233 Yosypenko, Sergij 289, 309, 310, 321 Yudin, Boris 25, 55, 73, 230 Yudin, Grigory 25, 55, 73, 230 Zabužko, Oksana 291, 321 Zajcev, Aleksandr 244, 281

Zedania, Giga 105 Žerebkina, Irina 238, 282 Žižek, Slavoj 221, 233, 234, 276 Zlotina, Maria 296, 322 Žmogus ir žodis, journal 171 Žukauskaitė, Audronė 167, 169 ΣΧΟΛΗ. Philosophical Antiquity and the Classical Tradition, journal 244, 260

..

SOVIET AND POST-SOVIET POLITICS AND SOCIETY

.

Edited by Dr. Andreas Umland |ISSN 1614-3515 1

Андреас Умланд (ред.) | Воплощение Европейской конвенции по правам человека в России. Философские, юридические и эмпирические исследования | ISBN 3-89821-387-0

2

Christian Wipperfürth | Russland – ein vertrauenswürdiger Partner? Grundlagen, Hintergründe und Praxis gegenwärtiger russischer Außenpolitik | Mit einem Vorwort von Heinz Timmermann | ISBN 3-89821-401-X

3

Manja Hussner | Die Übernahme internationalen Rechts in die russische und deutsche Rechtsordnung. Eine vergleichende Analyse zur Völkerrechtsfreundlichkeit der Verfassungen der Russländischen Föderation und der Bundesrepublik Deutschland | Mit einem Vorwort von Rainer Arnold | ISBN 3-89821-438-9

4 5

Matthew Tejada | Bulgaria's Democratic Consolidation and the Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant (KNPP). The Unattainability of Closure | With a foreword by Richard J. Crampton | ISBN 3-89821-439-7 Марк Григорьевич Меерович | Квадратные метры, определяющие сознание. Государственная жилищная политика в СССР. 1921 – 1941 гг | ISBN 3-89821-474-5

6

Andrei P. Tsygankov, Pavel A.Tsygankov (Eds.) | New Directions in Russian International Studies | ISBN 3-89821-422-2

7

Марк Григорьевич Меерович | Как власть народ к труду приучала. Жилище в СССР – средство управления людьми. 1917 – 1941 гг. | С предисловием Елены Осокиной | ISBN 3-89821-495-8

8

David J. Galbreath | Nation-Building and Minority Politics in Post-Socialist States. Interests, Influence and Identities in Estonia and Latvia | With a foreword by David J. Smith | ISBN 3-89821-467-2

9

Алексей Юрьевич Безугольный | Народы Кавказа в Вооруженных силах СССР в годы Великой Отечественной войны 1941-1945 гг. | С предисловием Николая Бугая | ISBN 3-89821-475-3

10 Вячеслав Лихачев и Владимир Прибыловский (ред.) | Русское Национальное Единство, 1990-2000. В 2-х томах | ISBN 3-89821-523-7 11 Николай Бугай (ред.) | Народы стран Балтии в условиях сталинизма (1940-е – 1950-e годы). Документированная история | ISBN 3-89821-525-3 12 Ingmar Bredies (Hrsg.) | Zur Anatomie der Orange Revolution in der Ukraine. Wechsel des Elitenregimes oder Triumph des Parlamentarismus? | ISBN 3-89821-524-5

13 Anastasia V. Mitrofanova | The Politicization of Russian Orthodoxy. Actors and Ideas | With a foreword by William C. Gay | ISBN 3-89821-481-8

14 Nathan D. Larson | Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the Russo-Jewish Question | ISBN 3-89821-483-4 15 Guido Houben | Kulturpolitik und Ethnizität. Staatliche Kunstförderung im Russland der neunziger Jahre | Mit einem Vorwort von Gert Weisskirchen | ISBN 3-89821-542-3

16 Leonid Luks | Der russische „Sonderweg“? Aufsätze zur neuesten Geschichte Russlands im europäischen Kontext | ISBN 3-89821-496-6

17 Евгений Мороз | История «Мёртвой воды» – от страшной сказки к большой политике. Политическое неоязычество в постсоветской России | ISBN 3-89821-551-2

18 Александр Верховский и Галина Кожевникова (peд.) | Этническая и религиозная интолерантность в российских СМИ. Результаты мониторинга 2001-2004 гг. | ISBN 3-89821-569-5 19 Christian Ganzer | Sowjetisches Erbe und ukrainische Nation. Das Museum der Geschichte des Zaporoger Kosakentums auf der Insel Chortycja | Mit einem Vorwort von Frank Golczewski | ISBN 3-89821-504-0

20 Эльза-Баир Гучинова | Помнить нельзя забыть. Антропология депортационной травмы калмыков | С предисловием Кэролайн Хамфри | ISBN 3-89821-506-7

21 Юлия Лидерман | Мотивы «проверки» и «испытания» в постсоветской культуре. Советское прошлое в российском кинематографе 1990-х годов | С предисловием Евгения Марголита | ISBN 3-89821-511-3

22 Tanya Lokshina, Ray Thomas, Mary Mayer (Eds.) | The Imposition of a Fake Political Settlement in the Northern Caucasus. The 2003 Chechen Presidential Election | ISBN 3-89821-436-2 23 Timothy McCajor Hall, Rosie Read (Eds.) | Changes in the Heart of Europe. Recent Ethnographies of Czechs, Slovaks, Roma, and Sorbs | With an afterword by Zdeněk Salzmann | ISBN 3-89821-606-3

24 Christian Autengruber | Die politischen Parteien in Bulgarien und Rumänien. Eine vergleichende Analyse seit Beginn der 90er Jahre | Mit einem Vorwort von Dorothée de Nève | ISBN 3-89821-476-1

25 Annette Freyberg-Inan with Radu Cristescu | The Ghosts in Our Classrooms, or: John Dewey Meets Ceauşescu. The Promise and the Failures of Civic Education in Romania | ISBN 3-89821-416-8 26 John B. Dunlop | The 2002 Dubrovka and 2004 Beslan Hostage Crises. A Critique of Russian CounterTerrorism | With a foreword by Donald N. Jensen | ISBN 3-89821-608-X

27 Peter Koller | Das touristische Potenzial von Kam’’janec’–Podil’s’kyj. Eine fremdenverkehrsgeographische Untersuchung der Zukunftsperspektiven und Maßnahmenplanung zur Destinationsentwicklung des „ukrainischen Rothenburg“ | Mit einem Vorwort von Kristiane Klemm | ISBN 3-89821-640-3

28 Françoise Daucé, Elisabeth Sieca-Kozlowski (Eds.) | Dedovshchina in the Post-Soviet Military. Hazing of Russian Army Conscripts in a Comparative Perspective | With a foreword by Dale Herspring | ISBN 3-89821-616-0

29 Florian Strasser | Zivilgesellschaftliche Einflüsse auf die Orange Revolution. Die gewaltlose Massenbewegung und die ukrainische Wahlkrise 2004 | Mit einem Vorwort von Egbert Jahn | ISBN 3-89821-648-9

30 Rebecca S. Katz | The Georgian Regime Crisis of 2003-2004. A Case Study in Post-Soviet Media Representation of Politics, Crime and Corruption | ISBN 3-89821-413-3

31 Vladimir Kantor | Willkür oder Freiheit. Beiträge zur russischen Geschichtsphilosophie | Ediert von Dagmar Herrmann sowie mit einem Vorwort versehen von Leonid Luks | ISBN 3-89821-589-X

32 Laura A. Victoir | The Russian Land Estate Today. A Case Study of Cultural Politics in Post-Soviet Russia | With a foreword by Priscilla Roosevelt | ISBN 3-89821-426-5

33 Ivan Katchanovski | Cleft Countries. Regional Political Divisions and Cultures in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Moldova | With a foreword by Francis Fukuyama | ISBN 3-89821-558-X

34 Florian Mühlfried | Postsowjetische Feiern. Das Georgische Bankett im Wandel | Mit einem Vorwort von Kevin Tuite | ISBN 3-89821-601-2

35 Roger Griffin, Werner Loh, Andreas Umland (Eds.) | Fascism Past and Present, West and East. An International Debate on Concepts and Cases in the Comparative Study of the Extreme Right | With an afterword by Walter Laqueur | ISBN 3-89821-674-8

36 Sebastian Schlegel | Der „Weiße Archipel“. Sowjetische Atomstädte 1945-1991 | Mit einem Geleitwort von Thomas Bohn | ISBN 3-89821-679-9

37 Vyacheslav Likhachev | Political Anti-Semitism in Post-Soviet Russia. Actors and Ideas in 1991-2003 | Edited and translated from Russian by Eugene Veklerov | ISBN 3-89821-529-6

38 Josette Baer (Ed.) | Preparing Liberty in Central Europe. Political Texts from the Spring of Nations 1848 to the Spring of Prague 1968 | With a foreword by Zdeněk V. David | ISBN 3-89821-546-6

39 Михаил Лукьянов | Российский консерватизм и реформа, 1907-1914 | С предисловием Марка Д. Стейнберга | ISBN 3-89821-503-2

40 Nicola Melloni | Market Without Economy. The 1998 Russian Financial Crisis | With a foreword by Eiji Furukawa | ISBN 3-89821-407-9

41 Dmitrij Chmelnizki | Die Architektur Stalins | Bd. 1: Studien zu Ideologie und Stil | Bd. 2: Bilddokumentation | Mit einem Vorwort von Bruno Flierl | ISBN 3-89821-515-6

42 Katja Yafimava | Post-Soviet Russian-Belarussian Relationships. The Role of Gas Transit Pipelines | With a foreword by Jonathan P. Stern | ISBN 3-89821-655-1

43 Boris Chavkin | Verflechtungen der deutschen und russischen Zeitgeschichte. Aufsätze und Archiv-

funde zu den Beziehungen Deutschlands und der Sowjetunion von 1917 bis 1991 | Ediert von Markus Edlinger sowie mit einem Vorwort versehen von Leonid Luks | ISBN 3-89821-756-6

44 Anastasija Grynenko in Zusammenarbeit mit Claudia Dathe | Die Terminologie des Gerichtswesens der Ukraine und Deutschlands im Vergleich. Eine übersetzungswissenschaftliche Analyse juristischer Fachbegriffe im Deutschen, Ukrainischen und Russischen | Mit einem Vorwort von Ulrich Hartmann | ISBN 3-89821-691-8

45 Anton Burkov | The Impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Russian Law. Legislation and Application in 1996-2006 | With a foreword by Françoise Hampson | ISBN 978-3-89821-639-5

46 Stina Torjesen, Indra Overland (Eds.) | International Election Observers in Post-Soviet Azerbaijan. Geopolitical Pawns or Agents of Change? | ISBN 978-3-89821-743-9 47 Taras Kuzio | Ukraine – Crimea – Russia. Triangle of Conflict | ISBN 978-3-89821-761-3 48 Claudia Šabić | „Ich erinnere mich nicht, aber L'viv!“ Zur Funktion kultureller Faktoren für die Institutionalisierung und Entwicklung einer ukrainischen Region | Mit einem Vorwort von Melanie Tatur | ISBN 978-3-89821-752-1

49 Marlies Bilz | Tatarstan in der Transformation. Nationaler Diskurs und Politische Praxis 1988-1994 | Mit einem Vorwort von Frank Golczewski | ISBN 978-3-89821-722-4

50 Марлен Ларюэль (ред.) | Современные интерпретации русского национализма | ISBN 978-3-89821-795-8

51 Sonja Schüler | Die ethnische Dimension der Armut. Roma im postsozialistischen Rumänien | Mit einem Vorwort von Anton Sterbling | ISBN 978-3-89821-776-7

52 Галина Кожевникова | Радикальный национализм в России и противодействие ему. Сборник докладов Центра «Сова» за 2004-2007 гг. | С предисловием Александра Верховского | ISBN 978-3-89821-721-7

53 Галина Кожевникова и Владимир Прибыловский | Российская власть в биографиях I. Высшие должностные лица РФ в 2004 г. | ISBN 978-3-89821-796-5

54 Галина Кожевникова и Владимир Прибыловский | Российская власть в биографиях II. Члены Правительства РФ в 2004 г. | ISBN 978-3-89821-797-2

55 Галина Кожевникова и Владимир Прибыловский | Российская власть в биографиях III. Руководители федеральных служб и агентств РФ в 2004 г.| ISBN 978-3-89821-798-9

56 Ileana Petroniu | Privatisierung in Transformationsökonomien. Determinanten der Restrukturierungs-Bereitschaft am Beispiel Polens, Rumäniens und der Ukraine | Mit einem Vorwort von Rainer W. Schäfer | ISBN 978-3-89821-790-3

57 Christian Wipperfürth | Russland und seine GUS-Nachbarn. Hintergründe, aktuelle Entwicklungen und Konflikte in einer ressourcenreichen Region| ISBN 978-3-89821-801-6

58 Togzhan Kassenova | From Antagonism to Partnership. The Uneasy Path of the U.S.-Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction | With a foreword by Christoph Bluth | ISBN 978-3-89821-707-1

59 Alexander Höllwerth | Das sakrale eurasische Imperium des Aleksandr Dugin. Eine Diskursanalyse zum postsowjetischen russischen Rechtsextremismus | Mit einem Vorwort von Dirk Uffelmann | ISBN 978-3-89821-813-9

60 Олег Рябов | «Россия-Матушка». Национализм, гендер и война в России XX века | С предисловием Елены Гощило | ISBN 978-3-89821-487-2

61 Ivan Maistrenko | Borot'bism. A Chapter in the History of the Ukrainian Revolution | With a new Introduction by Chris Ford | Translated by George S. N. Luckyj with the assistance of Ivan L. Rudnytsky | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition ISBN 978-3-8382-1107-7

62 Maryna Romanets | Anamorphosic Texts and Reconfigured Visions. Improvised Traditions in Contemporary Ukrainian and Irish Literature | ISBN 978-3-89821-576-3

63 Paul D'Anieri and Taras Kuzio (Eds.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution I. Democratization and Elections in Post-Communist Ukraine | ISBN 978-3-89821-698-2

64 Bohdan Harasymiw in collaboration with Oleh S. Ilnytzkyj (Eds.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution II. Information and Manipulation Strategies in the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Elections | ISBN 978-3-89821-699-9 65 Ingmar Bredies, Andreas Umland and Valentin Yakushik (Eds.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution III. The Context and Dynamics of the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Elections | ISBN 978-3-89821-803-0 66 Ingmar Bredies, Andreas Umland and Valentin Yakushik (Eds.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution IV. Foreign Assistance and Civic Action in the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Elections | ISBN 978-3-89821-808-5 67 Ingmar Bredies, Andreas Umland and Valentin Yakushik (Eds.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution V. Institutional Observation Reports on the 2004 Ukrainian Presidential Elections | ISBN 978-3-89821-809-2 68 Taras Kuzio (Ed.) | Aspects of the Orange Revolution VI. Post-Communist Democratic Revolutions in Comparative Perspective | ISBN 978-3-89821-820-7

69 Tim Bohse | Autoritarismus statt Selbstverwaltung. Die Transformation der kommunalen Politik in der Stadt Kaliningrad 1990-2005 | Mit einem Geleitwort von Stefan Troebst | ISBN 978-3-89821-782-8

70 David Rupp | Die Rußländische Föderation und die russischsprachige Minderheit in Lettland. Eine Fallstudie zur Anwaltspolitik Moskaus gegenüber den russophonen Minderheiten im „Nahen Ausland“ von 1991 bis 2002 | Mit einem Vorwort von Helmut Wagner | ISBN 978-3-89821-778-1

71 Taras Kuzio | Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives on Nationalism. New Directions in Cross-Cultural and Post-Communist Studies | With a foreword by Paul Robert Magocsi | ISBN 978-3-89821-815-3

72 Christine Teichmann | Die Hochschultransformation im heutigen Osteuropa. Kontinuität und Wandel bei der Entwicklung des postkommunistischen Universitätswesens | Mit einem Vorwort von Oskar Anweiler | ISBN 978-3-89821-842-9

73 Julia Kusznir | Der politische Einfluss von Wirtschaftseliten in russischen Regionen. Eine Analyse am Beispiel der Erdöl- und Erdgasindustrie, 1992-2005 | Mit einem Vorwort von Wolfgang Eichwede | ISBN 978-3-89821-821-4

74 Alena Vysotskaya | Russland, Belarus und die EU-Osterweiterung. Zur Minderheitenfrage und zum Problem der Freizügigkeit des Personenverkehrs | Mit einem Vorwort von Katlijn Malfliet | ISBN 978-3-89821-822-1

75 Heiko Pleines (Hrsg.) | Corporate Governance in post-sozialistischen Volkswirtschaften | ISBN 978-3-89821-766-8

76 Stefan Ihrig | Wer sind die Moldawier? Rumänismus versus Moldowanismus in Historiographie und Schulbüchern der Republik Moldova, 1991-2006 | Mit einem Vorwort von Holm Sundhaussen | ISBN 978-3-89821-466-7

77 Galina Kozhevnikova in collaboration with Alexander Verkhovsky and Eugene Veklerov | UltraNationalism and Hate Crimes in Contemporary Russia. The 2004-2006 Annual Reports of Moscow’s SOVA Center | With a foreword by Stephen D. Shenfield | ISBN 978-3-89821-868-9

78 Florian Küchler | The Role of the European Union in Moldova’s Transnistria Conflict | With a foreword by Christopher Hill | ISBN 978-3-89821-850-4

79 Bernd Rechel | The Long Way Back to Europe. Minority Protection in Bulgaria | With a foreword by Richard Crampton | ISBN 978-3-89821-863-4

80 Peter W. Rodgers | Nation, Region and History in Post-Communist Transitions. Identity Politics in Ukraine, 1991-2006 | With a foreword by Vera Tolz | ISBN 978-3-89821-903-7

81 Stephanie Solywoda | The Life and Work of Semen L. Frank. A Study of Russian Religious Philosophy | With a foreword by Philip Walters | ISBN 978-3-89821-457-5

82 Vera Sokolova | Cultural Politics of Ethnicity. Discourses on Roma in Communist Czechoslovakia | ISBN 978-3-89821-864-1

83 Natalya Shevchik Ketenci | Kazakhstani Enterprises in Transition. The Role of Historical Regional Development in Kazakhstan’s Post-Soviet Economic Transformation | ISBN 978-3-89821-831-3

84 Martin Malek, Anna Schor-Tschudnowskaja (Hgg.) | Europa im Tschetschenienkrieg. Zwischen politischer Ohnmacht und Gleichgültigkeit | Mit einem Vorwort von Lipchan Basajewa | ISBN 978-3-89821-676-0

85 Stefan Meister | Das postsowjetische Universitätswesen zwischen nationalem und internationalem Wandel. Die Entwicklung der regionalen Hochschule in Russland als Gradmesser der Systemtransformation | Mit einem Vorwort von Joan DeBardeleben | ISBN 978-3-89821-891-7

86 Konstantin Sheiko in collaboration with Stephen Brown | Nationalist Imaginings of the Russian Past. Anatolii Fomenko and the Rise of Alternative History in Post-Communist Russia | With a foreword by Donald Ostrowski | ISBN 978-3-89821-915-0

87 Sabine Jenni | Wie stark ist das „Einige Russland“? Zur Parteibindung der Eliten und zum Wahlerfolg der Machtpartei im Dezember 2007 | Mit einem Vorwort von Klaus Armingeon | ISBN 978-3-89821-961-7

88 Thomas Borén | Meeting-Places of Transformation. Urban Identity, Spatial Representations and Local Politics in Post-Soviet St Petersburg | ISBN 978-3-89821-739-2

89 Aygul Ashirova | Stalinismus und Stalin-Kult in Zentralasien. Turkmenistan 1924-1953 | Mit einem Vorwort von Leonid Luks | ISBN 978-3-89821-987-7

90 Leonid Luks | Freiheit oder imperiale Größe? Essays zu einem russischen Dilemma | ISBN 978-3-8382-0011-8 91 Christopher Gilley | The ‘Change of Signposts’ in the Ukrainian Emigration. A Contribution to the History of Sovietophilism in the 1920s | With a foreword by Frank Golczewski | ISBN 978-3-89821-965-5

92 Philipp Casula, Jeronim Perovic (Eds.) | Identities and Politics During the Putin Presidency. The Discursive Foundations of Russia's Stability | With a foreword by Heiko Haumann | ISBN 978-3-8382-0015-6

93 Marcel Viëtor | Europa und die Frage nach seinen Grenzen im Osten. Zur Konstruktion ‚europäischer Identität’ in Geschichte und Gegenwart | Mit einem Vorwort von Albrecht Lehmann | ISBN 978-3-8382-0045-3

94 Ben Hellman, Andrei Rogachevskii | Filming the Unfilmable. Casper Wrede's 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich' | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition | ISBN 978-3-8382-0044-6

95 Eva Fuchslocher | Vaterland, Sprache, Glaube. Orthodoxie und Nationenbildung am Beispiel Georgiens | Mit einem Vorwort von Christina von Braun | ISBN 978-3-89821-884-9

96 Vladimir Kantor | Das Westlertum und der Weg Russlands. Zur Entwicklung der russischen Literatur und Philosophie | Ediert von Dagmar Herrmann | Mit einem Beitrag von Nikolaus Lobkowicz | ISBN 978-3-8382-0102-3

97 Kamran Musayev | Die postsowjetische Transformation im Baltikum und Südkaukasus. Eine vergleichende Untersuchung der politischen Entwicklung Lettlands und Aserbaidschans 1985-2009 | Mit einem Vorwort von Leonid Luks | Ediert von Sandro Henschel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0103-0

98 Tatiana Zhurzhenko | Borderlands into Bordered Lands. Geopolitics of Identity in Post-Soviet Ukraine | With a foreword by Dieter Segert | ISBN 978-3-8382-0042-2

99 Кирилл Галушко, Лидия Смола (ред.) | Пределы падения – варианты украинского будущего. Аналитико-прогностические исследования | ISBN 978-3-8382-0148-1 100 Michael Minkenberg (Ed.) | Historical Legacies and the Radical Right in Post-Cold War Central and Eastern Europe | With an afterword by Sabrina P. Ramet | ISBN 978-3-8382-0124-5 101 David-Emil Wickström | Rocking St. Petersburg. Transcultural Flows and Identity Politics in the St. Petersburg Popular Music Scene | With a foreword by Yngvar B. Steinholt | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition | ISBN 978-3-8382-0100-9

102 Eva Zabka | Eine neue „Zeit der Wirren“? Der spät- und postsowjetische Systemwandel 1985-2000 im Spiegel russischer gesellschaftspolitischer Diskurse | Mit einem Vorwort von Margareta Mommsen | ISBN 978-3-8382-0161-0

103 Ulrike Ziemer | Ethnic Belonging, Gender and Cultural Practices. Youth Identitites in Contemporary Russia | With a foreword by Anoop Nayak | ISBN 978-3-8382-0152-8

104 Ksenia Chepikova | ‚Einiges Russland’ - eine zweite KPdSU? Aspekte der Identitätskonstruktion einer postsowjetischen „Partei der Macht“ | Mit einem Vorwort von Torsten Oppelland | ISBN 978-3-8382-0311-9

105 Леонид Люкс | Западничество или евразийство? Демократия или идеократия? Сборник статей об исторических дилеммах России | С предисловием Владимира Кантора | ISBN 978-3-8382-0211-2

106 Anna Dost | Das russische Verfassungsrecht auf dem Weg zum Föderalismus und zurück. Zum Konflikt von Rechtsnormen und -wirklichkeit in der Russländischen Föderation von 1991 bis 2009 | Mit einem Vorwort von Alexander Blankenagel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0292-1

107 Philipp Herzog | Sozialistische Völkerfreundschaft, nationaler Widerstand oder harmloser Zeitvertreib? Zur politischen Funktion der Volkskunst im sowjetischen Estland | Mit einem Vorwort von Andreas Kappeler | ISBN 978-3-8382-0216-7

108 Marlène Laruelle (Ed.) | Russian Nationalism, Foreign Policy, and Identity Debates in Putin's Russia. New Ideological Patterns after the Orange Revolution | ISBN 978-3-8382-0325-6 109 Michail Logvinov | Russlands Kampf gegen den internationalen Terrorismus. Eine kritische Bestandsaufnahme des Bekämpfungsansatzes | Mit einem Geleitwort von Hans-Henning Schröder und einem Vorwort von Eckhard Jesse | ISBN 978-3-8382-0329-4

110 John B. Dunlop | The Moscow Bombings of September 1999. Examinations of Russian Terrorist Attacks at the Onset of Vladimir Putin's Rule | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition | ISBN 978-3-8382-0388-1

111 Андрей А. Ковалёв | Свидетельство из-за кулис российской политики I. Можно ли делать добрo

из зла? (Воспоминания и размышления о последних советских и первых послесоветских годах) | With a foreword by Peter Reddaway | ISBN 978-3-8382-0302-7

112 Андрей А. Ковалёв | Свидетельство из-за кулис российской политики II. Угроза для себя и окружающих (Наблюдения и предостережения относительно происходящего после 2000 г.) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0303-4 113 Bernd Kappenberg | Zeichen setzen für Europa. Der Gebrauch europäischer lateinischer Sonderzeichen in der deutschen Öffentlichkeit | Mit einem Vorwort von Peter Schlobinski | ISBN 978-3-89821-749-1

114 Ivo Mijnssen | The Quest for an Ideal Youth in Putin’s Russia I. Back to Our Future! History, Modernity, and Patriotism according to Nashi, 2005-2013 | With a foreword by Jeronim Perović | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition | ISBN 978-3-8382-0368-3

115 Jussi Lassila | The Quest for an Ideal Youth in Putin’s Russia II. The Search for Distinctive Conformism in the Political Communication of Nashi, 2005-2009 | With a foreword by Kirill Postoutenko | Second, Revised and Expanded Edition | ISBN 978-3-8382-0415-4

116 Valerio Trabandt | Neue Nachbarn, gute Nachbarschaft? Die EU als internationaler Akteur am Beispiel ihrer Demokratieförderung in Belarus und der Ukraine 2004-2009 | Mit einem Vorwort von Jutta Joachim | ISBN 978-3-8382-0437-6

117 Fabian Pfeiffer | Estlands Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik I. Der estnische Atlantizismus nach der wiedererlangten Unabhängigkeit 1991-2004 | Mit einem Vorwort von Helmut Hubel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0127-6

118 Jana Podßuweit | Estlands Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik II. Handlungsoptionen eines Kleinstaates im Rahmen seiner EU-Mitgliedschaft (2004-2008) | Mit einem Vorwort von Helmut Hubel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0440-6

119 Karin Pointner | Estlands Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik III. Eine gedächtnispolitische Analyse estnischer Entwicklungskooperation 2006-2010 | Mit einem Vorwort von Karin Liebhart | ISBN 978-3-8382-0435-2

120 Ruslana Vovk | Die Offenheit der ukrainischen Verfassung für das Völkerrecht und die europäische Integration | Mit einem Vorwort von Alexander Blankenagel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0481-9

121 Mykhaylo Banakh | Die Relevanz der Zivilgesellschaft bei den postkommunistischen Transformationsprozessen in mittel- und osteuropäischen Ländern. Das Beispiel der spät- und postsowjetischen Ukraine 1986-2009 | Mit einem Vorwort von Gerhard Simon | ISBN 978-3-8382-0499-4

122 Michael Moser | Language Policy and the Discourse on Languages in Ukraine under President Viktor Yanukovych (25 February 2010–28 October 2012) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0497-0 (Paperback edition) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0507-6 (Hardcover edition)

123 Nicole Krome | Russischer Netzwerkkapitalismus Restrukturierungsprozesse in der Russischen Föderation am Beispiel des Luftfahrtunternehmens „Aviastar“ | Mit einem Vorwort von Petra Stykow | ISBN 978-3-8382-0534-2

124 David R. Marples | 'Our Glorious Past'. Lukashenka‘s Belarus and the Great Patriotic War | ISBN 978-3-8382-0574-8 (Paperback edition) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0675-2 (Hardcover edition)

125 Ulf Walther | Russlands „neuer Adel“. Die Macht des Geheimdienstes von Gorbatschow bis Putin | Mit einem Vorwort von Hans-Georg Wieck | ISBN 978-3-8382-0584-7

126 Simon Geissbühler (Hrsg.) | Kiew – Revolution 3.0. Der Euromaidan 2013/14 und die Zukunftsperspektiven der Ukraine | ISBN 978-3-8382-0581-6 (Paperback edition) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0681-3 (Hardcover edition)

127 Andrey Makarychev | Russia and the EU in a Multipolar World. Discourses, Identities, Norms | With a foreword by Klaus Segbers | ISBN 978-3-8382-0629-5

128 Roland Scharff | Kasachstan als postsowjetischer Wohlfahrtsstaat. Die Transformation des sozialen Schutzsystems | Mit einem Vorwort von Joachim Ahrens | ISBN 978-3-8382-0622-6

129 Katja Grupp | Bild Lücke Deutschland. Kaliningrader Studierende sprechen über Deutschland | Mit einem Vorwort von Martin Schulz | ISBN 978-3-8382-0552-6

130 Konstantin Sheiko, Stephen Brown | History as Therapy. Alternative History and Nationalist Imaginings in Russia, 1991-2014 | ISBN 978-3-8382-0665-3

131 Elisa Kriza | Alexander Solzhenitsyn: Cold War Icon, Gulag Author, Russian Nationalist? A Study of the Western Reception of his Literary Writings, Historical Interpretations, and Political Ideas | With a foreword by Andrei Rogatchevski | ISBN 978-3-8382-0589-2 (Paperback edition) | ISBN 978-3-8382-0690-5 (Hardcover edition)

132 Serghei Golunov | The Elephant in the Room. Corruption and Cheating in Russian Universities | ISBN 978-3-8382-0570-0

133 Manja Hussner, Rainer Arnold (Hgg.) | Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Zentralasien I. Sammlung von Verfassungstexten | ISBN 978-3-8382-0595-3

134 Nikolay Mitrokhin | Die „Russische Partei“. Die Bewegung der russischen Nationalisten in der UdSSR 1953-1985 | Aus dem Russischen übertragen von einem Übersetzerteam unter der Leitung von Larisa Schippel | ISBN 978-3-8382-0024-8

135 Manja Hussner, Rainer Arnold (Hgg.) | Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit in Zentralasien II. Sammlung von Verfassungstexten | ISBN 978-3-8382-0597-7

136 Manfred Zeller | Das sowjetische Fieber. Fußballfans im poststalinistischen Vielvölkerreich | Mit einem Vorwort von Nikolaus Katzer | ISBN 978-3-8382-0757-5

137 Kristin Schreiter | Stellung und Entwicklungspotential zivilgesellschaftlicher Gruppen in Russland. Menschenrechtsorganisationen im Vergleich | ISBN 978-3-8382-0673-8 138 David R. Marples, Frederick V. Mills (Eds.) | Ukraine’s Euromaidan. Analyses of a Civil Revolution | ISBN 978-3-8382-0660-8

139 Bernd Kappenberg | Setting Signs for Europe. Why Diacritics Matter for European Integration | With a foreword by Peter Schlobinski | ISBN 978-3-8382-0663-9

140 René Lenz | Internationalisierung, Kooperation und Transfer. Externe bildungspolitische Akteure in der Russischen Föderation | Mit einem Vorwort von Frank Ettrich | ISBN 978-3-8382-0751-3

141 Juri Plusnin, Yana Zausaeva, Natalia Zhidkevich, Artemy Pozanenko | Wandering Workers. Mores, Behavior, Way of Life, and Political Status of Domestic Russian Labor Migrants | Translated by Julia Kazantseva | ISBN 978-3-8382-0653-0

142 David J. Smith (Eds.) | Latvia – A Work in Progress? 100 Years of State- and Nation-Building | ISBN 978-3-8382-0648-6

143 Инна Чувычкина (ред.) | Экспортные нефте- и газопроводы на постсоветском пространстве. Aнализ трубопроводной политики в свете теории международных отношений | ISBN 978-3-8382-0822-0

144 Johann Zajaczkowski | Russland – eine pragmatische Großmacht? Eine rollentheoretische Untersuchung russischer Außenpolitik am Beispiel der Zusammenarbeit mit den USA nach 9/11 und des Georgienkrieges von 2008 | Mit einem Vorwort von Siegfried Schieder | ISBN 978-3-8382-0837-4

145 Boris Popivanov | Changing Images of the Left in Bulgaria. The Challenge of Post-Communism in the Early 21st Century | ISBN 978-3-8382-0667-7

146 Lenka Krátká | A History of the Czechoslovak Ocean Shipping Company 1948-1989. How a Small, Landlocked Country Ran Maritime Business During the Cold War | ISBN 978-3-8382-0666-0

147 Alexander Sergunin | Explaining Russian Foreign Policy Behavior. Theory and Practice | ISBN 978-3-8382-0752-0

148 Darya Malyutina | Migrant Friendships in a Super-Diverse City. Russian-Speakers and their Social Relationships in London in the 21st Century | With a foreword by Claire Dwyer | ISBN 978-3-8382-0652-3

149 Alexander Sergunin, Valery Konyshev | Russia in the Arctic. Hard or Soft Power? | ISBN 978-3-8382-0753-7 150 John J. Maresca | Helsinki Revisited. A Key U.S. Negotiator’s Memoirs on the Development of the CSCE into the OSCE | With a foreword by Hafiz Pashayev | ISBN 978-3-8382-0852-7

151 Jardar Østbø | The New Third Rome. Readings of a Russian Nationalist Myth | With a foreword by Pål Kolstø | ISBN 978-3-8382-0870-1

152 Simon Kordonsky | Socio-Economic Foundations of the Russian Post-Soviet Regime. The Resource-Based Economy and Estate-Based Social Structure of Contemporary Russia | With a foreword by Svetlana Barsukova | ISBN 978-3-8382-0775-9

153 Duncan Leitch | Assisting Reform in Post-Communist Ukraine 2000–2012. The Illusions of Donors and the Disillusion of Beneficiaries | With a foreword by Kataryna Wolczuk | ISBN 978-3-8382-0844-2

154 Abel Polese | Limits of a Post-Soviet State. How Informality Replaces, Renegotiates, and Reshapes Governance in Contemporary Ukraine | With a foreword by Colin Williams | ISBN 978-3-8382-0845-9

155 Mikhail Suslov (Ed.) | Digital Orthodoxy in the Post-Soviet World. The Russian Orthodox Church and Web 2.0 | With a foreword by Father Cyril Hovorun | ISBN 978-3-8382-0871-8

156 Leonid Luks | Zwei „Sonderwege“? Russisch-deutsche Parallelen und Kontraste (1917-2014). Vergleichende Essays | ISBN 978-3-8382-0823-7

157 Vladimir V. Karacharovskiy, Ovsey I. Shkaratan, Gordey A. Yastrebov | Towards a New Russian Work Culture. Can Western Companies and Expatriates Change Russian Society? | With a foreword by Elena N. Danilova | Translated by Julia Kazantseva | ISBN 978-3-8382-0902-9

158 Edmund Griffiths | Aleksandr Prokhanov and Post-Soviet Esotericism | ISBN 978-3-8382-0963-0 159 Timm Beichelt, Susann Worschech (Eds.) | Transnational Ukraine? Networks and Ties that Influence(d) Contemporary Ukraine | ISBN 978-3-8382-0944-9

160 Mieste Hotopp-Riecke | Die Tataren der Krim zwischen Assimilation und Selbstbehauptung. Der Aufbau des krimtatarischen Bildungswesens nach Deportation und Heimkehr (1990-2005) | Mit einem Vorwort von Swetlana Czerwonnaja | ISBN 978-3-89821-940-2

161 Olga Bertelsen (Ed.) | Revolution and War in Contemporary Ukraine. The Challenge of Change | ISBN 978-3-8382-1016-2

162 Natalya Ryabinska | Ukraine's Post-Communist Mass Media. Between Capture and Commercialization | With a foreword by Marta Dyczok | ISBN 978-3-8382-1011-7

163 Alexandra Cotofana, James M. Nyce (Eds.) | Religion and Magic in Socialist and Post-Socialist Contexts. Historic and Ethnographic Case Studies of Orthodoxy, Heterodoxy, and Alternative Spirituality | With a foreword by Patrick L. Michelson | ISBN 978-3-8382-0989-0

164 Nozima Akhrarkhodjaeva | The Instrumentalisation of Mass Media in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes. Evidence from Russia’s Presidential Election Campaigns of 2000 and 2008 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1013-1 165 Yulia Krasheninnikova | Informal Healthcare in Contemporary Russia. Sociographic Essays on the PostSoviet Infrastructure for Alternative Healing Practices | ISBN 978-3-8382-0970-8

166 Peter Kaiser | Das Schachbrett der Macht. Die Handlungsspielräume eines sowjetischen Funktionärs unter Stalin am Beispiel des Generalsekretärs des Komsomol Aleksandr Kosarev (1929-1938) | Mit einem Vorwort von Dietmar Neutatz | ISBN 978-3-8382-1052-0

167 Oksana Kim | The Effects and Implications of Kazakhstan’s Adoption of International Financial Reporting Standards. A Resource Dependence Perspective | With a foreword by Svetlana Vlady | ISBN 978-3-8382-0987-6

168 Anna Sanina | Patriotic Education in Contemporary Russia. Sociological Studies in the Making of the PostSoviet Citizen | With a foreword by Anna Oldfield | ISBN 978-3-8382-0993-7

169 Rudolf Wolters | Spezialist in Sibirien Faksimile der 1933 erschienenen ersten Ausgabe | Mit einem Vorwort von Dmitrij Chmelnizki | ISBN 978-3-8382-0515-1

170 Michal Vít, Magdalena M. Baran (Eds.) | Transregional versus National Perspectives on Contemporary Central European History. Studies on the Building of Nation-States and Their Cooperation in the 20th and 21st Century | With a foreword by Petr Vágner | ISBN 978-3-8382-1015-5

171 Philip Gamaghelyan | Conflict Resolution Beyond the International Relations Paradigm. Evolving Designs as a Transformative Practice in Nagorno-Karabakh and Syria | With a foreword by Susan Allen | ISBN 978-3-8382-1057-5

172 Maria Shagina | Joining a Prestigious Club. Cooperation with Europarties and Its Impact on Party Development in Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine 2004–2015 | With a foreword by Kataryna Wolczuk | ISBN 978-3-8382-1084-1

173 Alexandra Cotofana, James M. Nyce (Eds.) | Religion and Magic in Socialist and Post-Socialist Contexts II. Baltic, Eastern European, and Post-USSR Case Studies | With a foreword by Anita Stasulane | ISBN 978-3-8382-0990-6

174 Barbara Kunz | Kind Words, Cruise Missiles, and Everything in Between. The Use of Power Resources in U.S. Policies towards Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus 1989–2008 | With a foreword by William Hill | ISBN 978-3-8382-1065-0

175 Eduard Klein | Bildungskorruption in Russland und der Ukraine. Eine komparative Analyse der Performanz staatlicher Antikorruptionsmaßnahmen im Hochschulsektor am Beispiel universitärer Aufnahmeprüfungen | Mit einem Vorwort von Heiko Pleines | ISBN 978-3-8382-0995-1

176 Markus Soldner | Politischer Kapitalismus im postsowjetischen Russland. Die politische, wirtschaftliche und mediale Transformation in den 1990er Jahren | Mit einem Vorwort von Wolfgang Ismayr | ISBN 978-3-8382-1222-7

177 Anton Oleinik | Building Ukraine from Within. A Sociological, Institutional, and Economic Analysis of a NationState in the Making | ISBN 978-3-8382-1150-3

178 Peter Rollberg, Marlene Laruelle (Eds.) | Mass Media in the Post-Soviet World. Market Forces, State Actors, and Political Manipulation in the Informational Environment after Communism | ISBN 978-3-8382-1116-9

179 Mikhail Minakov | Development and Dystopia. Studies in Post-Soviet Ukraine and Eastern Europe | With a foreword by Alexander Etkind | ISBN 978-3-8382-1112-1

180 Aijan Sharshenova | The European Union’s Democracy Promotion in Central Asia. A Study of Political Interests, Influence, and Development in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan in 2007–2013 | With a foreword by Gordon Crawford | ISBN 978-3-8382-1151-0

181 Andrey Makarychev, Alexandra Yatsyk (Eds.) | Boris Nemtsov and Russian Politics. Power and Resistance | With a foreword by Zhanna Nemtsova | ISBN 978-3-8382-1122-0

182 Sophie Falsini | The Euromaidan’s Effect on Civil Society. Why and How Ukrainian Social Capital Increased after the Revolution of Dignity | With a foreword by Susann Worschech | ISBN 978-3-8382-1131-2

183 Valentyna Romanova, Andreas Umland (Eds.) | Ukraine’s Decentralization. Challenges and Implications of the Local Governance Reform after the Euromaidan Revolution | ISBN 978-3-8382-1162-6

184 Leonid Luks | A Fateful Triangle. Essays on Contemporary Russian, German and Polish History | ISBN 978-3-8382-1143-5

185 John B. Dunlop | The February 2015 Assassination of Boris Nemtsov and the Flawed Trial of his Alleged Killers. An Exploration of Russia’s “Crime of the 21st Century” | ISBN 978-3-8382-1188-6 186 Vasile Rotaru | Russia, the EU, and the Eastern Partnership. Building Bridges or Digging Trenches? | ISBN 978-3-8382-1134-3

187 Marina Lebedeva | Russian Studies of International Relations. From the Soviet Past to the Post-Cold-War Present | With a foreword by Andrei P. Tsygankov | ISBN 978-3-8382-0851-0

188 Tomasz Stępniewski, George Soroka (Eds.) | Ukraine after Maidan. Revisiting Domestic and Regional Security | ISBN 978-3-8382-1075-9

189 Petar Cholakov | Ethnic Entrepreneurs Unmasked. Political Institutions and Ethnic Conflicts in Contemporary Bulgaria | ISBN 978-3-8382-1189-3

190 A. Salem, G. Hazeldine, D. Morgan (Eds.) | Higher Education in Post-Communist States. Comparative and Sociological Perspectives | ISBN 978-3-8382-1183-1

191 Igor Torbakov | After Empire. Nationalist Imagination and Symbolic Politics in Russia and Eurasia in the Twentieth and Twenty-First Century | With a foreword by Serhii Plokhy | ISBN 978-3-8382-1217-3

192 Aleksandr Burakovskiy | Jewish-Ukrainian Relations in Late and Post-Soviet Ukraine. Articles, Lectures and Essays from 1986 to 2016 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1210-4

193 Natalia Shapovalova, Olga Burlyuk (Eds.) | Civil Society in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine. From Revolution to Consolidation | With a foreword by Richard Youngs | ISBN 978-3-8382-1216-6

194 Franz Preissler | Positionsverteidigung, Imperialismus oder Irredentismus? Russland und die „Russischsprachigen“, 1991–2015 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1262-3

195 Marian Madeła | Der Reformprozess in der Ukraine 2014-2017. Eine Fallstudie zur Reform der öffentlichen Verwaltung | Mit einem Vorwort von Martin Malek | ISBN 978-3-8382-1266-1

196 Anke Giesen | „Wie kann denn der Sieger ein Verbrecher sein?“ Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung der russlandweiten Debatte über Konzept und Verstaatlichungsprozess der Lagergedenkstätte „Perm’-36“ im Ural | ISBN 978-3-8382-1284-5

197 Alla Leukavets | The Integration Policies of Belarus and Ukraine vis-à-vis the EU and Russia. A Comparative Case Study Through the Prism of a Two-Level Game Approach | ISBN 978-3-8382-1247-0

198 Oksana Kim | The Development and Challenges of Russian Corporate Governance I. The Roles and Functions of Boards of Directors | With a foreword by Sheila M. Puffer | ISBN 978-3-8382-1287-6

199 Thomas D. Grant | International Law and the Post-Soviet Space I. Essays on Chechnya and the Baltic States | With a foreword by Stephen M. Schwebel | ISBN 978-3-8382-1279-1

200 Thomas D. Grant | International Law and the Post-Soviet Space II. Essays on Ukraine, Intervention, and Non-Proliferation | ISBN 978-3-8382-1280-7

201 Slavomír Michálek, Michal Štefansky | The Age of Fear. The Cold War and Its Influence on Czechoslovakia 1945–1968 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1285-2

202 Iulia-Sabina Joja | Romania’s Strategic Culture 1990–2014. Continuity and Change in a Post-Communist Country’s Evolution of National Interests and Security Policies | With a foreword by Heiko Biehl | ISBN 978-3-8382-1286-9

203 Andrei Rogatchevski, Yngvar B. Steinholt, Arve Hansen, David-Emil Wickström | War of Songs. Popular Music and Recent Russia-Ukraine Relations | With a foreword by Artemy Troitsky | ISBN 978-3-8382-1173-2

204 Maria Lipman (Ed.) | Russian Voices on Post-Crimea Russia. An Almanac of Counterpoint Essays from 2015–2018 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1251-7

205 Ksenia Maksimovtsova | Language Conflicts in Contemporary Estonia, Latvia, and Ukraine. A Comparative Exploration of Discourses in Post-Soviet Russian-Language Digital Media | With a foreword by Ammon Cheskin | ISBN 978-3-8382-1282-1

206 Michal Vít | The EU’s Impact on Identity Formation in East-Central Europe between 2004 and 2013. Perceptions of the Nation and Europe in Political Parties of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia | With a foreword by Andrea Petö | ISBN 978-3-8382-1275-3

207 Per A. Rudling | Tarnished Heroes. The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in the Memory Politics of Post-Soviet Ukraine | ISBN 978-3-8382-0999-9

208 Kaja Gadowska, Peter Solomon (Eds.) | Legal Change in Post-Communist States. Progress, Reversions, Explanations | ISBN 978-3-8382-1312-5

209 Pawel Kowal, Georges Mink, Iwona Reichardt (Eds.) | Three Revolutions: Mobilization and Change in Contemporary Ukraine I. Theoretical Aspects and Analyses on Religion, Memory, and Identity | ISBN 9783-8382-1321-7

210 Pawel Kowal, Georges Mink, Adam Reichardt, Iwona Reichardt (Eds.) | Three Revolutions: Mobilization and Change in Contemporary Ukraine II. An Oral History of the Revolution on Granite, Orange Revolution, and Revolution of Dignity | ISBN 978-3-8382-1323-1

211 Li Bennich-Björkman, Sergiy Kurbatov (Eds.) | When the Future Came. The Collapse of the USSR and the Emergence of National Memory in Post-Soviet History Textbooks | ISBN 978-3-8382-1335-4

212 Olga R. Gulina | Migration as a (Geo-)Political Challenge in the Post-Soviet Space. Border Regimes, Policy Choices, Visa Agendas | With a foreword by Nils Muižnieks | ISBN 978-3-8382-1338-5

213 Sanna Turoma, Kaarina Aitamurto, Slobodanka Vladiv-Glover (Eds.) | Religion, Expression, and Patriotism in Russia. Essays on Post-Soviet Society and the State. ISBN 978-3-8382-1346-0 214 Vasif Huseynov | Geopolitical Rivalries in the “Common Neighborhood”. Russia's Conflict with the West, Soft Power, and Neoclassical Realism | With a foreword by Nicholas Ross Smith | ISBN 978-3-8382-1277-7

215 Mikhail Suslov | Geopolitical Imagination. Ideology and Utopia in Post-Soviet Russia | With a foreword by Mark Bassin | ISBN 978-3-8382-1361-3

216 Alexander Etkind, Mikhail Minakov (Eds.) | Ideology after Union. Political Doctrines, Discourses, and Debates in Post-Soviet Societies | ISBN 978-3-8382-1388-0

217 Jakob Mischke, Oleksandr Zabirko (Hgg.) | Protestbewegungen im langen Schatten des Kreml. Aufbruch und Resignation in Russland und der Ukraine | ISBN 978-3-8382-0926-5

218 Oksana Huss | How Corruption and Anti-Corruption Policies Sustain Hybrid Regimes. Strategies of Political Domination under Ukraine’s Presidents in 1994-2014 | With a foreword by Tobias Debiel and Andrea Gawrich | ISBN 978-3-8382-1430-6

219 Dmitry Travin, Vladimir Gel'man, Otar Marganiya | The Russian Path. Ideas, Interests, Institutions, Illusions | With a foreword by Vladimir Ryzhkov | ISBN 978-3-8382-1421-4

220 Gergana Dimova | Political Uncertainty. A Comparative Exploration | With a foreword by Todor Yalamov and Rumena Filipova | ISBN 978-3-8382-1385-9

221 Torben Waschke | Russland in Transition. Geopolitik zwischen Raum, Identität und Machtinteressen | Mit einem Vorwort von Andreas Dittmann | ISBN 978-3-8382-1480-1

222 Steven Jobbitt, Zsolt Bottlik, Marton Berki (Eds.) | Power and Identity in the Post-Soviet Realm. Geographies of Ethnicity and Nationality after 1991 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1399-6 223 Daria Buteiko | Erinnerungsort. Ort des Gedenkens, der Erholung oder der Einkehr? Kommunismus-Erinnerung am Beispiel der Gedenkstätte Berliner Mauer sowie des Soloveckij-Klosters und -Museumsparks | ISBN 978-3-8382-1367-5

224 Olga Bertelsen (Ed.) | Russian Active Measures. Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow | With a foreword by Jan Goldman | ISBN 978-3-8382-1529-7

225 David Mandel | “Optimizing” Higher Education in Russia. University Teachers and their Union “Universitetskaya solidarnost’” | ISBN 978-3-8382-1519-8

226 Mikhail Minakov, Gwendolyn Sasse, Daria Isachenko (Eds.) | Post-Soviet Secessionism. Nation-Building and State-Failure after Communism | ISBN 978-3-8382-1538-9

227 Jakob Hauter (Ed.) | Civil War? Interstate War? Hybrid War? Dimensions and Interpretations of the Donbas Conflict in 2014–2020 | With a foreword by Andrew Wilson | ISBN 978-3-8382-1383-5

228 Tima T. Moldogaziev, Gene A. Brewer, J. Edward Kellough (Eds.) | Public Policy and Politics in Georgia. Lessons from Post-Soviet Transition | With a foreword by Dan Durning | ISBN 978-3-8382-1535-8 229 Oxana Schmies (Ed.) | NATO’s Enlargement and Russia. A Strategic Challenge in the Past and Future | With a foreword by Vladimir Kara-Murza | ISBN 978-3-8382-1478-8

230 Christopher Ford | Ukapisme – Une Gauche perdue. Le marxisme anti-colonial dans la révolution ukrainienne 1917-1925 | Avec une préface de Vincent Présumey | ISBN 978-3-8382-0899-2

231 Anna Kutkina | Between Lenin and Bandera. Decommunization and Multivocality in Post-Euromaidan Ukraine | With a foreword by Juri Mykkänen | ISBN 978-3-8382-1506-8

232 Lincoln E. Flake | Defending the Faith. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Demise of Religious Pluralism | With a foreword by Peter Martland | ISBN 978-3-8382-1378-1

233 Nikoloz Samkharadze | Russia’s Recognition of the Independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Analysis of a Deviant Case in Moscow’s Foreign Policy | With a foreword by Neil MacFarlane | ISBN 978-38382-1414-6

234 Arve Hansen | Urban Protest. A Spatial Perspective on Kyiv, Minsk, and Moscow | With a foreword by Julie Wilhelmsen | ISBN 978-3-8382-1495-5

235 Eleonora Narvselius, Julie Fedor (Eds.) | Diversity in the East-Central European Borderlands. Memories, Cityscapes, People | ISBN 978-3-8382-1523-5

236 Regina Elsner | The Russian Orthodox Church and Modernity. A Historical and Theological Investigation into Eastern Christianity between Unity and Plurality | With a foreword by Mikhail Suslov | ISBN 978-3-8382-1568-6

237 Bo Petersson | The Putin Predicament. Problems of Legitimacy and Succession in Russia | With a foreword by J. Paul Goode | ISBN 978-3-8382-1050-6

238 Jonathan Otto Pohl | The Years of Great Silence. The Deportation, Special Settlement, and Mobilization into the Labor Army of Ethnic Germans in the USSR, 1941–1955 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1630-0

239 Mikhail Minakov (Ed.) | Inventing Majorities. Ideological Creativity in Post-Soviet Societies | ISBN 978-3-83821641-6

240 Robert M. Cutler | Soviet and Post-Soviet Foreign Policies I. East-South Relations and the Political Economy of the Communist Bloc, 1971–1991 | With a foreword by Roger E. Kanet | ISBN 978-3-8382-1654-6

241 Izabella Agardi | On the Verge of History. Life Stories of Rural Women from Serbia, Romania, and Hungary, 1920–2020 | With a foreword by Andrea Pető | ISBN 978-3-8382-1602-7

242 Sebastian Schäffer (Ed.) | Ukraine in Central and Eastern Europe. Kyiv's Foreign Affairs and the International Relations of the Post-Communist Region | With a foreword by Pavlo Klimkin | ISBN 978-3-8382-1615-7

243 Volodymyr Dubrovskyi, Kalman Mizsei, Mychailo Wynnyckyj (Eds.) | Eight Years after the Revolution of Dignity. What Has Changed in Ukraine during 2013–2021? | With a foreword by Yaroslav Hrytsak | ISBN 978-3-8382-1560-0

244 Rumena Filipova | Constructing the Limits of Europe Identity and Foreign Policy in Poland, Bulgaria, and Russia since 1989 | With forewords by Harald Wydra and Gergana Yankova-Dimova | ISBN 978-3-8382-1649-2

245 Oleksandra Keudel | How Patronal Networks Shape Opportunities for Local Citizen Participation in a Hybrid Regime A Comparative Analysis of Five Cities in Ukraine | With a foreword by Sabine Kropp | ISBN 978-3-8382-1671-3

246 Jan Claas Behrends, Thomas Lindenberger, Pavel Kolar (Eds.) | Violence after Stalin Institutions, Practices, and Everyday Life in the Soviet Bloc 1953–1989 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1637-9

247 Leonid Luks | Macht und Ohnmacht der Utopien Essays zur Geschichte Russlands im 20. und 21. Jahrhundert | ISBN 978-3-8382-1677-5

248 Iuliia Barshadska | Brüssel zwischen Kyjiw und Moskau Das auswärtige Handeln der Europäischen Union im ukrainisch-russischen Konflikt 2014-2019 | Mit einem Vorwort von Olaf Leiße | ISBN 978-3-8382-1667-6

249 Valentyna Romanova | Decentralisation and Multilevel Elections in Ukraine Reform Dynamics and Party Politics in 2010–2021 | With a foreword by Kimitaka Matsuzato | ISBN 978-3-8382-1700-0

250 Alexander Motyl | National Questions. Theoretical Reflections on Nations and Nationalism in Eastern Europe | ISBN 978-3-8382-1675-1

251 Marc Dietrich | A Cosmopolitan Model for Peacebuilding. The Ukrainian Cases of Crimea and the Donbas | ISBN 978-3-8382-1687-4

252 Eduard Baidaus | An Unsettled Nation. State-Building, Identity, and Separatism in Post-Soviet Moldova | With forewords by John-Paul Himka and David R. Marples | ISBN 978-3-8382-1582-2

253 Igor Okunev, Petr Oskolkov (Eds.) | Transforming the Administrative Matryoshka. The Reform of Autonomous Okrugs in the Russian Federation, 2003–2008 | With a foreword by Vladimir Zorin | ISBN 978-3-8382-1721-5

254 Winfried Schneider-Deters | Ukraine’s Fateful Years 2013–2019. Vol. I: The Popular Uprising in Winter 2013/2014 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1725-3

255 Winfried Schneider-Deters | Ukraine’s Fateful Years 2013–2019. Vol. II: The Annexation of Crimea and the War in Donbas | ISBN 978-3-8382-1726-0

256 Robert M. Cutler | Soviet and Post-Soviet Russian Foreign Policies II. East-West Relations in Europe and the Political Economy of the Communist Bloc, 1971–1991 | With a foreword by Roger E. Kanet | ISBN 978-3-83821727-7

257 Robert M. Cutler | Soviet and Post-Soviet Russian Foreign Policies III. East-West Relations in Europe and Eurasia in the Post-Cold War Transition, 1991–2001 | With a foreword by Roger E. Kanet | ISBN 978-3-8382-1728-4

258 Paweł Kowal, Iwona Reichardt, Kateryna Pryshchepa (Eds.) | Three Revolutions: Mobilization and Change in Contemporary Ukraine III. Archival Records and Historical Sources on the 1990 Revolution on Granite | ISBN 978-3-8382-1376-7

259 Mikhail Minakov (Ed.) | Philosophy Unchained. Developments in Post-Soviet Philosophical Thought. | With a foreword by Christopher Donohue | ISBN 978-3-8382-1768-0

260 David Dalton | The Ukrainian Oligarchy After the Euromaidan. How Ukraine’s Political Economy Regime Survived the Crisis | With a foreword by Andrew Wilson | ISBN 978-3-8382-1740-6

261 Andreas Heinemann-Grüder (Ed.) | Who are the Fighters? Irregular Armed Groups in the RussianUkrainian War in 2014–2015 | ISBN 978-3-8382-1777-2

262 Taras Kuzio (Ed.) | Russian Disinformation and Western Scholarship. Bias and Prejudice in Journalistic, Expert, and Academic Analyses of East European and Eurasian Affairs | ISBN 978-3-8382-1685-0

263 Darius Furmonavicius | LithuaniaTransforms the West. Lithuania’s Liberation from Soviet Occupation and the Enlargement of NATO (1988–2022) | With a foreword by Vytautas Landsbergis | ISBN 978-3-8382-1779-6

264 Dirk Dalberg | Gegenwartsbeschreibungen und Zukunftsvorstellungen im tschechoslowakischen Dissens (1968-1989). Das politische Denken von Egon Bondy, Miroslav Kusý, Milan Šimečka und Petr Uhl | ISBN 978-3-8382-1318-7

ibidem.eu